Resolved: God Exists.

Remember that due to no one having seeing God we have to use theory, which is the basis of my argument, to either prove or disprove God. Contention 1: Ontological Argument (OA)My opponent begins to go on stating that we have no proof and that probability does not mean that there is a proof, but my opponent also dropped my S5 argument which I'll repost here for you. S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P This is important as when it's applied to the chain of events we can see that the probability is indeed a fact due to it's necessarilally. Remind you that this was a dropped argument on this as it help aids Premise 1 where my opponenet did most of his attacks on. This is huge, because we can see that the fact is that it changes from God probably existing to God exists necessarially. When we define Necessarially we can see that it means inevitable, so you can see that it is true that God exists already and this is from a dropped argument that my opponent failed to refute and that it should win me the debate alone. I also does not matter if this god is the FSM or the God of Christianity as all I have to do is prove through theory that God exists then we can see that it exists. We did encounter God, but that really only depends on what religion you are in. As for other things in reguards to finding God. We still cannot see the entire universe as we have the observable universe that Light has only had the time to travel a certain length and this length is not that far. God could simply be away from the reaches of the Kelper and the Hubble Telescopes and the CHilean telescope. Or God could exist in another dimension as I brought up last round and we have just haven't yet the time to be able to travel to other dimensions. Once again the If part is confirmed in my S5 argument and there is no other way to concider this argument by won by Pro. Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Arugment. Last round my opponent makes a huge turn around as he goes from stating that the universe had a beginning to be an infinite. We must realize that even if it was the Big Bang and that these waves caused matter. We can see that something had to start the Big Bang as I brought up in my 2nd Round and was also left unrefuted by Con. William Lane Craig has sited the evidence of Blue-Red shifts as the Univserve exspanding that it is hardcore evidence of the universe having a beginning. Also in my 3rd round I furthered this point and will increase my points on it later. Contention 3: Thomisitic TAHumans are indeed selfish as everything they do is to please them, but their morals and in order to please them would have an increase of their happiness and thus please God by showing that his creation did indeed to good. Sigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. Let me give you an example. Say you're walking down the street and you see a homeless man begging for change. You give the man change. You feel good knowing that now he has money to get some food into his stomach, but Freud has agrued that this was only done, because you want to save the genes of the human race and you want it to continue. Also that you now get a feel good feeling and if you didn't you would feel guilty and ashamed. You could have easily done it just so you can feel good about yourself. Here he is quoted. "I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think. "Random events cannot just "happen" as all have equal cause and effect which was another point that was dropped by my opponnent in C2 last round. God has created the heavens which many people had also called space. I do appologize as I have ran out of time.