Resolved: God Exists

Thank you Con for that informative, albeit brief response. As per the rules this will be my final round. In their latest response, my opponent dropped almost every argument that has been presented so far: Con still has not responded to my claim that life cannot come from non-life. Con has not provided an explanation for the origin of the laws of physics, an explanation that even their own sources demand. Con did not respond to my request for proof of the claim that morality is subjective. Con did not counter my rebuttals of the Omnipotence Paradox. Con did not counter my rebuttals of the Filippenko article. Con has not disputed that the universe had a finite beginning. As such, we are left no choice but to assume that Con has accepted my arguments and my rebuttals in these areas. Con did provide a much more in-depth argument for Uncaused Quantum Fluctuations, which I will now discuss. At first I was quite impressed with my opponent's seemingly detailed knowledge of quantum physics - that was certainly a complicated entry! But then I became less impressed when I discovered that almost all of Con's Round 4 argument is copy-pasted directly from a website called "Answers in Genesis" (which is ironic, because AiG is a creationist/Intelligent Design organization, more on that later). I'd like to express my deep disappointment that Con merely copied material from another website and presented it as their own argument. You can compare the two entries by clicking on this link and scrolling down to the section titled "Enter Quantum Fluctuations": . https://answersingenesis.org... So, Con bases their argument on information in an article published by Answers in Genesis. I wonder if my opponent actually read the entire article - because other than the short portion that Con quotes in their argument, the majority of the article is a critique of why Quantum Fluctuations are questionable at best. I will reproduce a sample here for demonstration purposes: "There are at least three serious logical problems with this entire line of reasoning [Quantum Fluctuations]: 1. Quantum mechanics implicitly assumes the existence of time and space, so how can the laws of quantum mechanics create time and space? 2. The only way that we know quantum mechanics is (at least approximately) correct is because we can do experiments and make observations to verify its predictions. Even if we accepted at face value the claim that QM allows particles to "pop" into and out of existence, who has ever observed a universe popping into existence? 3. Point #2 is one of the big logical problems with the claim that the laws of physics can explain the creation of the universe. These laws have only been observed to be applicable within our universe. We thus have zero justification for believing that they would apply "outside" the universe. " So, there are at least two different instances in this debate where Con cites sources that actually, after a detailed reading, support my position. I believe this is more than enough reason to cast doubt on Con's claims about Quantum Fluctuation. But. .. . let's assume that Quantum Fluctuation is valid and presents a true possibility for a godless universe. Is it therefore the best explanation available? In Round 1, I defined "best" as the most probable, most complete, most satisfying, and least extravagant option. Quantum Fluctuation certainly does not meet this criteria - it's not at all probable (Penrose's equation), it is woefully incomplete, and it's incredibly complex, as Con's highly technical Round 4 entry attests. Conversely, the existence of a divine design is exceedingly probable, totally complete, overwhelmingly satisfying, and extremely simple. So I agree with Con - let's invoke Occam's Razor, and let the voters decide which explanation is simpler and, therefore, more likely. == Conclusion == I believe I have shown ample and largely unchallenged proof that God most likely exists. Conversely, I believe Con has not given substantial proof beyond semantic word games that God most likely doesn't exist. Once again, I'd like to highlight that my opponent has dropped, and therefore accepted by default, most of the arguments and rebuttals I've made throughout the debate. I'd also like to respectfully remind my opponent that they agreed to present no new arguments in Round 5. As per the rules, I will waive my Round 5 response. Thanks for a great and challenging debate, I had lots of fun!