The existence of God is more probable than not.

Thank you, izbo10, for a thrilling debate. It is clear that my partner has forfeited this debate via conduct (see round 1). Because this is the final round, I shall summarize. The Argument from Entropy and Uncaused Cause In this argument, I argued that the universe cannot be infinitely old via the Law of Entropy. Because it had a beginning, it cannot possibly be infinite in size. Therefore, the universe could not have brought itself into existence (indeed, something transendent must have brought it in). To counter this, my partner has used the argumentum ad ridicul and has not attacked this argument whatsoever. I have shown that the Big Bang Theory has recently been obliderated.Contradictory to my partner's claims, the universe could not have been eternal via the Law of Entryopy. The fact that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" is forced by logic:We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything followed by the existence of something. The words “followed by” are crucial — how are they to be interpreted? What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed toinclude time: to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists — hence something did exist. But it is hard to see how else we are supposed to understand “followed by”; or when the denier of the causal principle says that it is possible for something to come from nothing what are we to understand by “from”? Again it cannot have a causal sense because something is supposed to have come into existence uncaused. All that appears to be left is a timeless contradiction — the existence of nothing and the existence of something. [1] My partner claims I accept one supernatural claim and rule out all the other without realizing the KCA, along with all philisophical evidence leaves a Deistic form of the transcedant being that created us. It seems you fail to grasp this. The IPU cannot exist because of the brut fact: Whatever has contradictory attributes cannot exist. The IPU has contradictory attributes. Therefore, the IPU cannot exist. Indeed, his argumentum ad ridicul is unwarrented and a red-herring. TAGIn this I argue that the Laws of Logic exist. From that, we conclude that they cannot be conceptual by nature, not the product of the universe, and not the product of human minds. Moreover, we know from the argument the Laws of Logic are transcedent because they are still true whether or not the universe exists. Therefore, the laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent. We must then conclude an absolte, transcendent mind exists. Notice that the conclusion says, "Therefore, there is an absolute transcendent mind in existence." My partner tells my to imagine a universe with a 4th dimension. Guess what? The laws of noncontradiction always stands. In one dimension A is A and in the other diminsion A is A; not B. Telelogical Argument My partner commits the fallacy of special pleading, "We know a coke bottle is designed; therefore it has a designer." I ask, how do you know that the coke bottle was designed? Why couldn't it have been given via evolution? (Including with the marks "Made in the USA). My opponent has not shown how it commits the fallacy of composition. Summary I. Cosmological Argument I have shown that the Law of Entryopy proves the universe could not be eternal. Hence, the universe could not have brought itself into existence. II. Transcedent The laws of logic are absolute even in another diminsion or universe. It is my opponent's job to prove that wrong; which he has not done. Conduct: My partner trolls the entire debate. +1 for pro. Spelling: My partner exhibits poor knowledge of the English language. "Did my opponent even bother to readthe argument against the uncaused cause?" the words "readthe" should be "read the" as two separate words.Arguments: All my arguments stand.Sources: My opponent failed to source. References[1] Quoted in Kohai-vs.-Contradiction debate, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument." http://www.debate.org...