The existence of God is more probable than not.

Ad Hominem Ad hominems result in an automatic loss. Izbo10 has commited ad hominems. Therefore, izbo10 has automatically lost. Examples: " I am really laughing that you are cowering on defending your god and have to defend a deistic god.""Thanks to my opponent for attempting to present arguments, though all have long since been debunked and laughed out the philosophy circle." "Sorry anybody who claims to have an imaginary friend is not on my level. If his name was Bob nobody would have a problem with me calling him out, but call it god and give it amazing unheard of attributes which make it crazier and people think I need to respect that $hit.""mr.infidel you claimed to be an educated atheist, now you are presenting blatant god of the gaps fallacies, I think that qualifies you as a moran!(intentional if you have ever seen the picture)""Does Matt Slick or my opponent, even understand what logic is? Actually I should say does my opponent since Matt Slicks variation is much better then he gave."Even though izbo10 has lost, I shall still go ahead to defend my arguments for the sake of arguing. The Argument from Entropy and Uncaused Cause My partner, izbo10, has admited that the universe has a cause and a beginning. This begs the question as to what that beginning is. Moreover, the argument does not rely on inductive reasonig; rather, it is saying that because every part requires a cause, the whole too requires a cause. Moreover, it is claiming whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe, regardless of whether it is a part or a whole, still requires a cause. [1] Secondy, we find that the Big Bang Theory has recently been debunked. Recently, OPERA has confirmed that the particle has gone faster than the speed of light. What does this mean? It means that the long since e=mc2 is false. Moreover, it also means that the BBT is also false. [2] Finally, izbo10 argues for the argumentum ad ridicul saying that a supernatural cause coud be anything such the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Maranimacons. This is a false assertion as we know the IPU cannot exist based upon contradictory attributes, namely, being both invisibe and pink. Izbo10 has not attempted to refute the argument that the universe could not have brought itsef into existence. Argument from the Laws of Logic. Izbo10 has given me a non-answer to this argument. Rather, he attempts the argumentum ad ridicul, which is a logical fallacy.His second argument from Matthew Slick, Is a variation of TAG, long since known as a god of the gaps fallacy, you can't explain logic, hence magic man in dem der sky did it. Well guess what several premises are wrong, the rules of logic are not a product of the mind, but instead are actual observations about the way the universe works. It is not a logical rule that something can't contradict itself, it is a rule of the universe, for instance a circle square can not exist because of rules of the universe, not because some mind says so. Now since we have gotten that nonsense out of the way, we can easily say that the laws of the universe had to be some way, and could just be a brute fact based on the way the universe came to be. There is no real reason to assume a mind created the laws of logic, we have observed the universe and came up with what the rules of logic are through those observations. Does Matt Slick or my opponent, even understand what logic is? Actually I should say does my opponent since Matt Slicks variation is much better then he gave.I have demonstrated that the Laws of Logic are not a product of nature, product of the universe, or the product of human minds. Moreover, I demonstrated that the Laws of Logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent. The obvious conclusion is that there is an absolute, transcendent mind in existence. We call this "God." The Teleogical Argument Izbo10 has pointed 3 "holes" in the argument: (1) Inductively complex things are not really proven to be designed; (2) It does not prove God; and (3) The Fallacy of Composition. To answer problem 1: Imagine if we were to go up to Mars, supposedly for the first time, and find a coke botte on the planet. What would be the obvious conclusion? That we have been fooled and there has been a previous mission to Mars. [3] The question becomes: if we are certain that the coke bottle was placed there, how much more can we be certain that there is a designer in our universe that created us?To answer "problem" 2: See answer to problem 1. Moreover, if I were to grant this, we can say that it does prove that God's existence is more probable than not; which is what this debate is over."Problem" 3 is not a problem at all. The Fallacy of Composition is an informal fallacy, as contradiction points out in his debate with izbo10. The burden of proof is now upon izbo10 to prove that it commits this fallacy. Thank you. References[1] Izbo10-vs.-Contradiction. "It is probable that God exists." http://www.debate.org...; [2] Science 2.0 "OPERA Confirms: Neutrinos Travel Faster Than Light!"http://www.science20.com...; [3] "Proof of the Existence of God." http://www.chabad.org...;