My argument for a god will be more convincing than my opponents.

Since Con was not able to provide or even anticipate my argument I’ll only present a framework for my rebuttals here:Like most god arguments it could be used to argue for virtually any creative force. My definitions were more specific. If the argument worked in the first place it would also support multiple contradictory claims so in the end it provides you with no conclusive information. The argument assumes advanced knowledge of physics while the most successful Physicists believe in a god or gods at a far lower rate than others. It is essentially a baffle with BS argument. Those who do not understand the knowledge needed to accept or deny the premises tend to agree that it is correct but cannot defend said premises. Those most qualified to understand it do not agree that it is evidence for a god. Especially not a supreme being or moral authority. Since these arguments are posted and rehashed ervery where I’ll post some quotes to illustrate various theories that our universe is likely a simulation and the god’s are the programmers (likely other AI at this point). I’ll elaborate next round. “it is, in principle, possible to simulate a universe in some way, at some point in the future, then we have to assume that on an infinite timeline some species, somewhere, will simulate the universe [1]. And if the universe will be perfectly, or near-perfectly, simulated at some point, then we have to examine the possibility that we live inside such a universe. And, on a truly infinite timeline, we might expect an almost infinite number of simulations to arise from an almost infinite number or civilizations — and indeed, a sophisticated-enough simulation might be able to let its simulated denizens themselves run universal simulations, and at that point all bets are officially off. In such a reality, simulated universes might outnumber real ones by an infinity to one, and so to assume we live in the one and only real universe would be the height of arrogance. ”______________________________________________________________________In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed a trilemma that he called "the simulation argument". Despite the name, Bostrom's "simulation argument" does not directly argue that we live in a simulation; instead, Bostrom's trilemma argues that one of three unlikely-seeming propositions must be true [2]. The trilemma points out that a technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power; if even a tiny percentage of them were to run "ancestor simulations" (that is, "high-fidelity" simulations of ancestral life that would be indistinguishable from reality to the simulated ancestor), the total number of simulated ancestors, or "Sims", in the universe (or multiverse, if it exists) would greatly exceed the total number of actual ancestors. Therefore,At least one of the following three propositions is almost certainly true:"The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or"The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero", or"The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one"Bostrom goes on to use a type of anthropic reasoning to claim that, if the third proposition is the one of those three that is true, and almost all people with our kind of experiences live in simulations, then we are almost certainly living in a simulation. ________________________________________________________________________________That’s a start anyway. See you next round and thanks for accepting this debate! [1] . https://www.extremetech.com...[2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...That ’s a start anyway.