The Biblical God exist and is Morally justified!

Contention I : God's Existence- My opponent states that science and logic make God's existence very likely to him, however science and logic make God's existence very unlikely to me, but that is not an argument. It was also stated that the fact that there is no scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God demonstrates that the existence of God is not a scientific question but a personal one. However, this is flawed reasoning because there is no scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence of extraterrestrials, and their existence certainly isn't a strictly personal matter. I understand the point Pro is trying to get across, but it seems he is struggling. A. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God. This says nothing about something coming into being uncased. Also, even if there was a cause of the universe (which I do not believe is the case), it wouldn't follow from this that the cause was God. Thus, nothing my opponent said with regards to section "A" actually supposed the idea of a God existing. B. Maximum Goodness. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God. My opponent simply asserted that if there are varying degrees of something that it can only make sense if there is a"maximal" version of that something. Let me try to illustrate the fallacy:Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as smelliness. But speaking of more of less smelliness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum smelliness, which is Gorg the garbage/ vomit being (If you imagine a being more smelly than Gorg, then that being would be Gorg). So, my opponent's argument here is extremely weak. C. The teleological argument (argument from design). There must be an intelligent designer who directs all things and this is God. Yes, I'm aware of the argument however you did not defend any reasons for why the conclusion of this argument is true. Thus, I will boldly dismiss this argument. D. Personnel experience argument. I myself have had experience in connecting with God. There have been countless amounts of people who have also had this experience. These people range from all different walks of life. Are we to conclude they and myself are mentally impaired and/or ill? We are all mentally ill in some way, it's all about degrees. Have you ever thought someone was calling your name when they weren't? Have you ever flipped out on someone? Have you ever talked to yourself? Also, there is no shame in having an experiencing and interpreting it as supernatural, I'm just saying it's an error in reasoning because the experience most likely stemmed from some sort of misfiring of neurons that took place in the brain. Plus lets not forget, countless people have had alien abduction experiences. Does this mean, that people are really being abducted by aliens? Of course not, it's due to a sleep disorder. Also, people from "different walks of life" mostly have experiences that involve different types of God's. If there was one true objective afterlife or alternate reality, then why do people mostly have experiences which coincide specifically with the religion they believe in? Now, some people have seen Jesus that weren't Christian, but Christianity is the biggest religion so it's no surprise. Contention II : God is Just-There is no injustice with God. In all his actions, he is completely fair. Because God is just, he will treat all fairly. With the same coin, He will judge all fairly by their works. You have just presented your case as nothing more than a bare assertion. Regardless, if you believe that hellfire is real then this mean he punishes people infinitely for finite crimes. This is not just action, because a just being treats an offender with a punishment equal to the crime. Contention III: God's morality-God is not required to explain moral systems to the letter. Yet the compassionate or just treatment of humans by God shows his willingness to give a moral plan to man. Others who don't have moral systems is one of the most compelling arguments ever offered for the existence of a moral God. This is yet another, bare assertion fallacy. I do not feel obligated to respond to this. Contention IV: Man's Justification-We are justified, declared righteous, at the moment of our salvation. Justification does not make us righteous, but rather pronounces us righteous. We are by right through God given Justification to establish what is moral through God's word and not the latter. Yup, you guessed it. Another bare assertion fallacy. .Points Contending Against=Contention I: Spiritual Decay-This argument from my opponent just begs the question. What reason is there for anyone to believe spirits actually exist? Contention II: Moral Decay-There is no evidence or reason to think this argument is true, it was once more, a bare assertion fallacy. Contention III: Physical Decay-This doesn't seem to have any relation to the issue of God's existence. Contention IV: Lack of knowledge-A lack of knowledge doesn't = God did it. This is an argument from ignorance, and a God of the Gaps fallacy. Closing-Ask the Jews in the concentration camps if they felt the immediate presence of God when they sincerely turned to him. Why don't you read about all the Jews who lost their faith after that? God clearly doesn't reveal himself to anybody. A soccer player who scored goals all the time will thank Jesus and think he is experiencing him, but a child starving in Africa wonders why God doesn't care. .. The idea of God is all psychological in my opinion. Anyway, my opponent failed to meet his burden and I pointed out countless fallacies. Thus, the debate is leaning in my favor.