God almost certainly exists

OverviewFirstly, I would like to make sense of the semantics of this round. I do not really understand how a claim, "almost certainly exists," interpreted as, "most probably exists," has a different burden of proof from, "exists." Pro has set an incredibly high burden of proof, one that cannot possibly be met by arguing for a being that cannot be observed in any way. Secondly, I would like everyone to look to the bottom of Pro's argument the previous round. Five sources are given; one is an explanation of quantum physics, one is a definition of the genetic fallacy (which Pro improperly applies), and three are from the website ReasonableFaith.org, a website set up by Dr. William Lane Craig, a prominent theist. This is not credible. Thirdly, every single Pro argument is circular. For instance, the first argument goes something along the lines of, "God exists, and he is unchangeable, because he exists," and the second argument is simply an appeal to authority without any rational argumentation whatsoever. These arguments do not stand up to deeper investigation. Reconstruction: Argument from Evil"The simple fact is that the notion that genuine, binding evil exists is epistemically inscrutable."If binding evil, binding wrong exists, then how, exactly, can binding good exist? How can there possibly be binding morality if there is no binding evil that morality commands us to avoid? Any appeal to God to settle this matter presupposes that God exists in any meaningful way, and is not an explanation for WHY he permits evil. The simple fact of the matter is that God is not an actor placed into difficult circumstances, faced between the lesser of two evils. God, according to Pro, literally has created the groundrules by which we play and the universe in which we play. He controls literally the entire landscape of the universe. The idea that, somehow, it could feasibly be moral to allow genocide (The Holocaust is not an appeal to Abrahamic God; it certainly DID happen) to occur when God himself created the circumstances in which the genocide occured is laughable. God made the universe, and, thereby, every single rule and action within; he is responsible for everything that goes awry. This conception is not in accord with an omnibenevolent God. Rebuttal: Creation had a CreatorGod of the GapsI am quite uncertain that Pro understands what God of the gaps means. God of the gaps is when science, failing to, at the moment, provide a satisfactory answer, is substituted for a very unscientific, unknowable, unfalsifiabled deity. I gave numerous possible explanations, as witnessed in my previous sources [2] and [4], and Pro's source [3] does as well, as to how the universe could have potentially come into being independently. The simple fact of the matter is that science is still working on a conclusive answer; lack of one is not evidence for an infinitely-complex creator. P1 Con argues that the universe cannot be necessary because it is changeless; yet, I have offered significant evidence that, at the micro level, the laws of Thermodynamics brerak down, that matter can, in fact, create itself (see previous sources). The universe could have brought itself into being through gravity wages or quantum indeterminacy, since the Big Bang was, in fact, borne from micro-level matter [previous source 2, 3]. "Such an indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics, that is required for Con's objection, is one of many - none of which can be known for certain."The idea that there are multiple accounts of quantum mechanics does not disprove my objection; I simply am putting forth the idea that there are other, scientific possibilities, even if they cannot presently be proved. However, by his very nature, God cannot be proven; it is quite amusing that Pro is attacking scientific enquiry because it is not proven. Finally, again, in my source material, it is stated quite clearly that a quantum vacuum and the universe are different entities entirely. A quantum vacuum is, by necessity, self-existent because it is the absence of anything [4]. The entire argument here is that something can, sometimes, come from nothing. P2"The concept in itself is highly speculative and by no means scientifically proven."Again, the idea that Pro is attacking scientfic enquiry because is has not yet been proven is absolutely comical. Moreover, Pro misunderstands what gravity waves mean: they are in the universe, but they lend evidence to the idea that somehow, energy that spontaneously appeared spontaneously created matter from a quantum vacuum [4]. Again, something CAN come from nothing. "By definition, a necessary entity has no creator."This is circular logic at its finest; God does not have a creator because God is defined as having no creator. This is not an argument. "It is not a change to the nature of God himself..."How so? God, one day, in the solitude of nothingness that existed before the universe, decided to totally and irrevocably upset the status quo and create a universe? That seems to me to be a huge change in God's modus operandi, which would be a change in God's decision-making, which would be a change in God himself. Literally, this entire argument boils down to the idea that God does not change or have an explanation because that is just how God is. That is not a logical argument or a deductive proof; that is circular reasoning. P3-P5Nothing new here. Rebuttal: Morality Genetic fallacyPro's argument is that humans have reasoned out reasonable moral norms, so, therefore, an objective, binding morality exists. This objective morality has some grounding, a God, therefore, according to Pro. Pro does not understand what I am saying here. I have given a scientifically-accurate account as to how morality came about, which was independent of a God and necessary for the survival of homo sapiens as a species. The grounding of a possible objective morality, which is highly debateable, is natural selection, not God. P1 "Opinions concerining morality are irrelevant in establishing its objectiveness."Pro then makes an analogy about the Earth being flat. The difference is that you can prove that the Earth is, in fact, not flat. You cannot possible prove via scientific enquiry that genuine, binding, external morals exist. The entire argument here is that different societies, using the same DNA as us, have determined entirely different moral codes. How, exactly, could an objective morality exist if humans have reasoned such varying conceptions of it? More importantly, where, exactly, do you go to prove that there is an objective morality?P2"I argue that human moral experience and reasoning of genuinely binding morality proves the objectiveness of morals...and should therefore be assumed correct unless proven otherwise."What Pro is saying is merely a dressed-up version of what I have argued Pro is arguing; humans do, in fact, reason out certain moral behaviors. However, these vary wildly and have a grounding in genetics and cultural standards, thereby discrediting the idea of both objective morality and a God to create it. Also, the idea that I somehow have the burden to disprove morality is comical; Pro is making a positive claim that objective morality exists. Pro, then, has to prove that this is the case, and in no way has this task been accomplished. ConclusionPro has not met the BOP of this round. Pro has not proven anything in this round. Pro does not use logical and rational argumentation in this round. Literally every single argument made is a logical fallacy of some sort, from appeals to authority to circular logic. Pro, somehow, has to make positive proofs that discredit the scientific notions I have set forward, and this Pro cannot do. Thank you, and I look forward to future argumentation.