It is likely that a God or gods exist

Omnipotence Paradox My opponent completely drops this argument. Reverse Modal Ontological Argument My opponent's revised argument does not work because it requires God or gods to be necessary beings. Necessary beings must exist in all possible worlds. I have not argued that God or gods are necessary beings! Hence, the third premise of this argument does not work. I could even make a parallel argument to try and "prove" that my opponent does not exist! Clearly, without the assumption that God is a necessary being, this argument is simply invalid. Argument Against Atemporal Minds My opponent completely misunderstands my objection. Deities cannot exist outside of space-time "before" creating it because there was no time before the origin of the universe. Rather, I claim that the creator of the universe used simultaneous causation to create the universe. Moreover, God can be omnitemporal, entering into time at the moment of creation. This is what I mean by the fact then when you make a house, you can live in the house. God can exist omnitemporally when he creates space-time. The above response also deals with my opponent's claim that a mind involves processes that do involve time. Nevertheless, my opponent has not specified how a mind must exist temporally other than asserting it in the previous round. Even a timeless mind can hold beliefs and knowledge eternally. My opponent has not explained which processes require a mind to exist temporally, as well as prove that a mind must necessarily, by definition, carry out those specific processes. No amount of underlining words can prove this for him. Therefore, it seems that all three of Con's arguments are hopelessly inadequate to disprove the existence of a God or gods. What about my arguments? Kalam Cosmological Argument My opponent's objections are very confused. First, my opponent objects to one of my arguments for the first premise by saying that it does not point in the direction of a deity. Alone, of course it doesn't! The argument is meant to support premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, namely that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. This is a theologically neutral premise, as is the premise that the universe began to exist. It is the combination of both these premises that point to the existence of God. My opponent also seems to think that this argument is a mere appeal to intuition. But I provided justification for this argument, namely that since nothing has no properties, it is absurd for something to pop into existence out of nothing. Contrary to my opponent's claims, I have also provided evidence for the first principle in terms of everyday experience. If a horse popped into being in his living room, would he just think it appeared with no cause? Or would he investigate the horse and surroundings for a cause? The first premise is validated every day by our experience, yet my opponent does not want to apply it to the universe. That is an example of the Taxicab Fallacy, and no amount of underlining changes that fact. My opponent's objections to the second premise are also confused. Last round, I challenged my opponent to provide evidence for his assertion that entropy did not increase until after the big bang. He has not provided such evidence. He also doesn't realize that if entropy increases for an infinite amount of time, it would be too great to permit life in the universe. He also does not provide an alternate explanation to the standard model of the origin of the universe, in which the universe was created billions of years ago in the Big Bang. With all due respect, my opponent's responses to my scientific arguments are abysmal. My opponent also disputes that the Hilbert's Hotel thought experiment shows that an actual infinite is metaphysically impossible. Note that Hilbert's Hotel is logically possible- but it is absurd. If there was a hotel with an infinite number of rooms with all rooms occupied, and everyone occupying an odd-numbered room checked out, then there would still be an infinite number of people in the hotel. In fact, the manager could fill the vacancy by shifting everyone one room down. So infinity minus infinity equals infinity, right? But if everyone but the occupants of rooms 1, 2, and 3 check out, then it would seem that infinity minus infinity is three! This is metaphysically contradictory and absurd. So my opponent"s objection that Hilbert's Hotel does not show anything is also false. Hence, it would appear that my opponent has failed to debunk either premise of this argument. But that means God exists. Fine-Tuning Argument I am astonished at how poorly my opponent has responded to this argument throughout this debate. I have given many sources from physicists to verify that the universe is fine-tuned, but my opponent has denied my evidence. Moreover, he has not given any reason to believe that the universe is not fine-tuned. In fact, in his last round, he implied that he does not deny the fine-tuning of the universe after all! But since he does not dispute any of the other premises of this argument, this means that my opponent has to conclude on the basis of this argument that God exists. Argument from Religious Experiences Con misunderstands my arguments. Once again, he makes assertions that he does not back up, such as that faith cannot provide objective evidence. He challenges my analogy to colors, but his challenge misses the point. If ten people who have never heard of science are in a room, and eight of them say that they see colors and two of them state that they do not see colors, what is the best explanation for this result? That colors exist, or that eight out of ten people are participating in some sort of mass delusion? The theory that colors exist is simpler and more plausible. Likewise, the theory that God or gods exist is more plausible than the theory that everyone but the atheist is experiencing some sort of mass delusion. The theory that God exists is also supported by the parable of the blind men, which throughout this debate my opponent has completely failed to respond to. He also claims that people believing in ghosts does not prove that ghosts exist. I agree! But people do not report having an inner sense that ghosts exist, and very few people claim to have ever experienced the presence of a ghost. The false belief in ghosts can plausibly be explained by fallacious reasoning and delusions among a small number of people. The theory that religious experiences are due to mass delusions is a much less satisfactory explanation for religious belief. Thus, the Argument from Religious Experiences also succeeds in proving that a God or gods exist. Conclusion In conclusion, we have seen three arguments for the existence of God or gods, namely the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument, and the Argument from Religious Experiences. All of my opponent's objections to these arguments have been rebutted successfully. Meanwhile, my opponent has dropped his argument against omnipotence, and I have successfully rebutted his other two arguments.