It is probable that God exists

In my final round I'll go over my arguments and explain why Pro has won them all. I also want to remind the voters that if I win on any one of my three arguments in the end you vote for me because I've shown that its more probable than not God exists. KCA Con never actually shows anything that came into existence without cause. His argument against this is essentially broken into two parts: quantum events occur without cause, and certain particles come into being out of nothing. First I dont believe either of these hold true, but even if they did it fails to refute the first premise because none of these show anything that came into being without cause out of nothing. Thus the first premise stands even taking my opponents arguments as true. But there are good reasons to think that his arguments are not true. For one he didnt respond (and now cannot) to the fact that these events occur according to the laws governing quantum events, and moreover he doesnt link this to anything actually beginning to exist. I get that hes trying to dispute causality here, but he hasnt shown a truly random event and he hasnt linked this to the creation of thing. He makes no response to Craigs critique of his argument, he merely affirms it. Unfortunately for Con fluctuating seas of energy are not nothing but rather something, so he fails to show something coming from nothing, nor does he show why everything doesnt show up out of nothing, he calls this a false dichtomy but it seems like a reasonable question. Con gives no explanation as to waht can/cant randomly appear and why and its too late for him to do so, thus premise one stands. What of premise two? Con gives essentially no response to the problems posed by infinity. If an infinite number of past events is impossible than his entire theory goes out the window as a logical impossibility; more significantly he makes no explanation as to how the Universe came into being from nothing. He just argues that quantum fluctuations could've caused the universe, but hes already conceded through not disputing that infinity is impossible and thus there had to be an absolute beginning of the Universe from nothing. He asserts with no evidence that scientists dont think the Universe began from nothing but without eveidence or explanation you ignore this. Premise two stands. The conclusion logically follows. Con gives does not dispute that the conclusion follows from the premises, and since I've shown them both to stand you affirm. CausaulityThe last critique Con brings up against the KCA is a perfect example of grasping at straws. He asserts that I havent proven causality to be a necessary law like mathematics and then fails to show how it isnt. It's basic logic and he hasnt shown that even if it doesnt apply in other worlds, he doesnt link this to the beginning of the Universe. Its incocievable to imagine a world without cause and effect. We can speculate about one existing but since its beyond the realm of human understanding to actually envision one we cant debate it. Ignore his Hume evidence, it doesnt even make sense. We can see, for example, that procreation leads to children, that phyical injury leads to pain, that fire to gasoline creates a blaze, ect. Hes just grasping at straws here, sure I cant actually PROVE that they cause one another, just as I cant actually PROVE that I exist. Its just a reasonable assumption to make given the wealth of human experience. Natural causeCon never gives an actual example of a natural cause other than quantum fluctuations, which are impossible as the cause because fluctuations are events and the number of past events must be finite so the universe had to have had an absolute beginning from nothing. Do not allow him to advance arguments against him in the next round, judge the round on a framework that infinite numbers of events is impossible because it hasnt been disputed by Con. He argues that time or space are relative, bringing up the example of sleeping. First, relativity in experience has absolutely no relevance to the actual existence of these entities, but more importantly as I stated and he ignored even if TIME doesnt exist, EVENTS do and have to be finite. This takes out the Kaku evidence he said I dropped because even in a Universe/multiverse without time (if thats possible, he hasnt proven so) events still exist and are finite. Con claims that nothingness is just like "empty space" but this is false. Nothingness is not empty, or a vaccuum. Like Craig said, nothingness has literally no properties at all. Recall also that in this round it is a fact that the Universe began from nothing, thus his quantum argument is nonresponsive. Fine tuning Surprisingly my opponent did not dispute this argument much. To my arguments about the finely tuned values of universal constants he only says that I didnt prove that life couldnt exist without this. My apologies but I thought it was self evident that life could not exist without, for example, molecules or in a hydrogen only universe (which literally could only be hydrogen, nothing else). Its cons burden here since hes the one who made the claim that life can exist in different conditions he didnt, so you have another point to affirm on. I showed that the laws of the Universe could easily be different. Strangely my opponent is advocating a multiverse composed of an infinite (and some timeless) number of universes while arguing that the conditions of the Universe could not be any different, a clear contradiction. But here it is actually Con who is shifting the burden of proof, his response is basically accusing me of making an assumption, but its a reasonable assumption because he gives you no reason that the conditions are necessary. Only logic is necessary. Con also totally drops that the initial expansion rate was finely tuned for life to exist. Con provides literally zero proof that the multiverse exists. He cites a scientist saying that dark energy someow makes the multiverse possible without explaining it. You ignore this because he doesnt explain it, a scientist asserting something means nothing absent some logical analysis. Con also drops Craigs critique of the multiverse theory that its incomprehensibly more likely that we would be observing a smaller universe than we are, and he completely drops the argument that the mechanisms in the multiverse are so undescribed by him that we dont know if fine tuning is necessary there too or not. Prefer observations made from the universe we know exists, Con doesnt give a single scrap of evidence to show that the multiverse actually exists--and indeed how could he? Its outside of our Universe. Metaphysics Con says he doesnt have to show what created multiple existents, while his entire position (atheism) is advocating the proposition that everything that occurs/exists happened without God. Of course he has to show another cause here, or else you prefer my worldview that explains this. Con grasps at straws--he says that I commit the God of the gaps fallacy, when what I actually did was explain why an intelligent mind as the first cause explains existents and nothing else does, and he says that I dropped his argument about everything being necessary. Unfortunately he didnt actually argue this, he asserted it was true and its to late for him now to do so. Con would've had to show that everything that exists had to exist, and he didnt. He only says if existence was contigent nothing would exist--no. .. all that means is its possible that nothing would exist. Moreover he doesnt actually dispute that God can explain this. Here you have a third reason to vote Pro--I showed that a first cause is necessary and God is the best candidate to explain this. Con doesnt dispute this. Thus since all three of my arguments stand, I think that Theism is the more rational view to hold and a pro vote is in order.