The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god.

The Fool makes blanket statement that all arguments for God are arguments from ignorance. The LCA does not claim that because we do not know the cause of the universe, the cause must be God. The LCA states that we do know the cause of the universe. This will be addressed in my defense of the PSR where I discuss types of explanations.Premise 1Overview of ModalityLet's start with my opponent's F4 and F5 in response to my first premise. My opponent claims that God must have an explanation in F5 and I agree with this. Now if he would like to read premise one in its entirety we would see that the explanation may either be within the necessity of his own nature or in an external cause. I have already explained why God is a necessary being and will not repeat myself here. As for F4, my opponent claims that necessary existence violates the PSR. This is false, however, as the PSR does not claim that everything must have a cause but rather an explanation. If everything needed a cause then we would arrive at the absurd conclusion that everything is contingent. But again, solely contingent beings cannot explain themselves for it would force an ad infinitum regress. From this logic alone we can see that there must be an uncaused cause, or a necessary being which could not have failed to exist. The laws of mathematics are necessary beings for they could not have failed to exist. Nothing caused the laws of mathematics to be true. My opponent concedes that down the chain of causes something would have to be uncaused, and this is my view as well. What he calls an uncaused cause, I cause a necessary being. There is no difference. To refute the possibility of a necessary being is for the Fool to be inconsistent with her own stance.Next comes the arguments labeled as objections to P3. My opponent claims that everything must exist necessarily for the past is locked. This logic leads us to accept the following: You have the option of voting for me or my opponent. You also have the option of allocating many different point combinations. Indeed, there are many possible votes you could give. However, let's say you decide to vote for me.The fool: AH HA, I've gotcha now! You voted for him, therefore you could not have done otherwise, because you already did it!It seems quite absurd to believe that you never had a choice in voting for me, and that you couldn't have voted for the fool.Next is my opponents F3 response to my third premise. I would claim that if the nature of something could be changed, then it's nature is contingent and not necessary. As such, if something is contingent it is not eternal.The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)Let's first talk the concern that an explanation necessarily entails a knowable reason. I would say that this claim is irrelevant. Based on an extension of modal logic we can know that just as beings exist contingently or necessarily, everything may be explained contingently or necessarily. My opponent concedes to this when she accepts the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit in her original presentation of the PSR, or that nothing comes from nothing. When asked, "why did the dog bark," we can offer only two types of explanation. The first is that something caused the dog to bark. The mailman approached, or the dog was hungry. The dog's barking was contingent. The other is that it could not have happened any other way. The dog could not have not barked. The dog's barking was necessary. Indeed, when explaining the PSR in this manner it becomes quite clear that we need not know the reason that the dog barked to know that there was a reason.But how is that when the LCA claims the know with certainty that God is the reason that the universe exists? Well this is simple. The LCA utilizes argument to the contrary in order to prove why the is no other possible explanation for the universe than God. As we know that the is and explanation for the universe, and no other explanation is possible, the only possible explanation is then God. Here is another point of the LCA where my opponent may believe I am arguing from ignorance. But why, asks the fool, do we assume that the last possible explanation is God? Is there not an unknowable explanation? This is a wise concern, I respond, however the LCA's argument to the contrary concerns itself simply with types of explanations rather than what the explanations are, and as God is a type of explanation himself, we need only prove that every other type of explanation is impossible. By proving that the why must be God, we prove that the what must be God when asking what caused the universe.Next my opponent distorts what necessary and sufficient conditions are. In X -> Y, yes X is the sufficient condition of Y and Y is the necessary condition of X. However, the conclusion my opponent draws is false. X is the sufficient condition because X is sufficient for why, in that X allows Y to happen. Y is the necessary condition because Y's existence necessarily proves X, in the Y could not have happened if X did not cause it to happen. In other words, God -> Universe makes God the sufficient condition for the universe, in that God allows the universe to exist. The universe is the necessary condition because the universe's existence necessarily proves God's existence, in that the universe could not have existed if God did not cause it to exist. When reformulating my opponent's claim into a more laymen idea, we see that God is not dependent on the universe. Yes, there is a relationship between God in the universe in that God caused the universe, but without the universe there would still be God, and without God the universe could not be. The universe is dependent on God, not the inverse.My opponent follows-up with by asserting that it is absolute nonsense to claim that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. He supports this with Parmenides of Elea. After realizing that my opponent solely defends her statements with greek philosophy, the misunderstanding becomes evident. Greek philosophers interpret existence in an outdated manner. This is why my opponent's support for existence is simply what IS IS. There is no logic behind this claim, just an observation that what IS IS. Modality clarifies by placing logical conditions on existence. That is not to say that Paramenides' claim is invalid. Paramenides and many other greek philosophers were simply explaining necessary existence as opposed to contingent existence. We now know that the quality of being eternal that they speak of apply only to necessary beings.Premise 2First my opponent provides an objection from semantics. This is answered when I discussed types of explanations. God is a type of explanation and thus by rejecting all other answers to why the universe exists, we arrive at what caused it to exist.Next my opponent claims that we cannot provide an explanation for the universe that lies without it, for our conception of that explanation is within the universe. I would say that this argument is simply a linguistic trap. Sure, our conception of that explanation is within the universe, but that does not mean the explanation cannot exist without the universe. My conception of Earth is within my head, but quite surely the Earth exists outside of my head.Then my opponent accuses me of the bare assertion fallacy. What I find humorous is that she does this by simply addressing the wording of the premise without even acknowledging the entire round I dedicated to explaining it along with the other premises of the LCA. It seems to be a bare assertion to claim that an argument you have not read is a bare assertion.Premise 3F1 and F3 have been refuted in my overview of modality. F2 is addressed in my defense of P2.Bible DistortionMy defense does no come from the Bible, thus this is irrelevant.Subject Universal FallacyIt is logically inconsistent to claim that existence is not a perfection, for one could not make that claim if they did not exist.