Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.

I will respond to all of Pro's logical arguments, but according to the rules, this round's focus is the continuation of my argument...I'm permitted to rebuttal, which I choose to do. The definition for god in this debate is "the intelligent creator of the universe." However, if there's no time and no passage of time without the universe, then creator-->created cannot occur. Creation requires stative time. I would like to stress that creation is a temporal concept; creation requires time to go from creator-->created. When we talk about the origin of the universe, we have to be careful with temporal concepts, because without time and the passage thereof, temporal concepts are nonsensical. I will use my energy set again [+matter,-gravity] to talk about the "beginning," or the big bang, which is the origin of our universe. In quantum fluctuations, without a universe, there is no matter/energy/radiation/particles/gravity/space/time...nothing. At this state [+0,-0], which is no +matter or -gravity, there was no space. Space and time are in fact a continuum...two sides of the same coin. https://en.wikipedia.org... Space is merely the position of matter or the distance between matter; matter dictates space. At [+0,-0] there was no matter, so there was no space, and therefore no time. Instead, in quantum fluctuations, as sub nuclear particles exist and become annihilated, the forces between these particles exist and annihilate as well. Space and time are merely variables that fluctuate in and out of these fluctuations. Without a universe, In a quantum fluctuation, a sub-nuclear particle exists and is simultaneously annihilated by its antiparticle, and this pseudo moment allows for the fluctuated existence/nonexistence of spacetime and the forces between the sub-nuclear particles. These fluctuations are an unstable nothing state, so energy is inevitable. [+0,-0]-->[+1,-1], this is the big bang. This shows that from (+0) no matter and (-0) no gravity, (+1) some matter and (-1) some gravity can statively exist, and only then is stative spacetime allowed. If we can understand that time is merely a variable that only statively exists AFTER the universe, then we can see that a creation of the universe cannot be; there's no time or passage of time for the creator to statively exist and create. So I reject that "the intelligent creator of the universe is more likely than not to exist" because the universe wasn't created, thus there was no creator, intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient or otherwise. I must also point out that Pro has to demonstrate that: 1. there is likely an intelligent creator of the universe, while avoiding time paradoxes 2. this creator is omnipotent 3. this creator is omniscient So, Pro attempts this logically... Pro tries the MOA, or Modal Ontological Argument. Despite Pro appealing to antiquity and authority by claiming that this argument has long been honored by philosophers, the argument itself isn't very good. It can be dismissed by its unproven 1st premise. Pro claims: "It is possible that a maximally great being exists." My response: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Dismissed. Without Pro demonstrating this particular possibility, we have no reason to believe in the possibility of a maximally great being. So, we can't "see that we can already see" that it's possible. Pro hasn't demonstrated such. Pro then attempts Anslem's Ontological Argument: "God, by definition, is the greatest possible being" and "exists necessarily, or in all possible worlds." My response: God's necessary existence as the greatest possible being has not been demonstrated, and the set that includes "all possible worlds" is an unknown set; making a assertion of god's existence in this unknown set is certainly without evidence. Dismissed. Now, my favorite argument for god is in fact the Kalam Cosmological Argument, because it was an attempt to take the infinite regress problem of "everything that exists has a creator" and change it so that god is exempt from this rule; this is a form of special pleading. Before the Kalam argument, was the original cosmological argument that asserted that "everything that exists had a creator." This turns into an infinite regress, because if god exists, according to the assertion, then god must have a creator, and god's creator must have a creator, and god's creator's creator's etc... So, the Kalam takes an infinitive verb phrase "to begin to exist," applies it to "everything that exists had a creator," and changes the assertion to "everything that BEGAN TO EXIST had a creator," which exempts god from being created, because he's always existed and never BEGAN TO exist. This argument is two-fold fallacious. 1. It uses circular reasoning, or it begs the question. 2. It special pleads god's exemption. 1. By saying that things "begin to exist," you automatically create a set of "things that don't begin to exist" and a set of "things that do begin to exist." The problem is that the set of "things that don't begin to exist" ends up only having one thing in it, god, which makes separating "begin to exist things" and "not beginning to exist things" unnecessary; the assertion that god didn't begin to exist is simply repeated by saying that god is the only member of the "didn't begin to exist" set. 2. By asserting that everything began to exist, except for god, you are special pleading god's exemption to the assumed rule. Without an explanation of how god should be considered exempt from the category, exempting him is special pleading, thus it is flawed logic and we can reject your conclusions from such. Pro then tries Monoistic Idealism: "P1 Mind is mental P2 Nothing mental can interact with what is non-mental C1 Nothing mind interacts with is non-mental P3 Mind interacts with reality C2 Reality is mental" My response: The mind is a construct of the brain. Constructs are contingent on physical reality. The mind therefore is not physical, rather it is contingent on the physical matter of the brain. So, I agree that mind is mental, and I agree that nothing mental can interact with what is non-mental, but I reject that mind interacts with reality. Constructs don't interact, they are merely contingent on physical matter. The mind doesn't interact with reality, the brain does. Constructs are not physical reality, they are representations of physical matter, thus they do not interact; the physical matter does. I reject conclusion 2 that reality is mental While I reject Solipsism's 2nd premise that solipsism is possible because there has been no demonstration of its possibility, I accept its conclusion that mind is not matter, because constructs are not matter themselves, they are contingent on matter. So, I reject the sphere argument attempting to explain god's intelligent mind with the idea that solipsism is possible. I also reject all of Pro's graphic organizers, because they inaccurately portray the mind as some physical entity rather than a construct contingent on a physical entity. Pro's tries an example to show that mind interacts with reality: "I get hit in the head with a foul ball at a baseball game. Outside of the fact that I would probably have been KO'd we can see that the mind affects what I feel." My response: Nope. Your brain, and its inner workings affect how you feel; the mind is just our representation of such; you're brain is doing everything. Pro is conflating the brain with the mind. Next round, according to the rules, I can address Pro's cosmological errors, assertion about teleology, and rebuttals to my explanation of the universe's origin and it's non relation to an intelligent creator.