Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.

I apologize to readers; many different and mutually exclusive arguments for god have weighed heavily on my character use.At least my characters aren't ravaged by the phrase "we can see here."I will get to Pro's assertions.Pro's Anslem's Argument:"Possible Worlds is also self explanitory. PW is simple in all other worlds it would be true."My response:Without knowing all of the possible worlds, you can't know if those worlds' properties involve a Greatest Possible Being (flagoiganberry) existing; the set of possible worlds is an unknown, undefined set, from which we cannot claim a necessary existence.I didn't drop it.Pro's Kalam defense:"God has always existed in this case and beginning to exist cannot affect something that is unaffected by Space-time."My response:I had mentioned that the Kalam begs the question by affirming the conclusion in the premise.The deep structure of the 1st premise is that there are things that began to exist, and there are things that didn't begin to exist.The conclusion is that one thing, god, exists and didn't begin to exist, which makes "THINGS that didn't begin to exist" in reality "A THING that didn't begin to exist."Premise - There are things that began to exist, and there is a thing that didn't begin to exist.Conclusion - There is a thing that didn't begin to exist.That, sir, is how you beg the question!There's your circle.Pro, without any demonstration of a higher dimension, or a mechanistic explanation of how something can transcend spacetime, you've given us bald assertions and specially plead that your god is the only exception to the beginning to exist rule.Simply saying that god transcends dimensions and didn't begin to exist doesn't explain the mechanism by which these activities are being done, nor which part of the mechanism god imparts his agency.If you don't know the mechanism, then how do you know "god transcending" is even happening?Now I have to clone myself as Pro supposes:"Let's say you clone yourself. I don't mean just a twin, but everything like you in everyway, but it will be unable to have a consciousness."My response:OkMy clone's response:...My response:Sorry, you said he lacked consciousness, so he couldn't respond.Pro continues:"We can see that it looks like you, talks like you, and it Physically like you, BUT it doesn't have the mind and hence not aware."My response:Wait, now my clone can talk? Just like me?Either I talk like an unconscious person, or there's some kind of flaw in this unconscious clone analogy.Pro concludes:"Thus we can see that the mind is able to interact with reality, because if it wouldn't then we would all be mindless zombies like my opponent's clone in this example."My response:The mindless zombie talks just like me? Therefore, without his "mind" he is able to interact with reality.I am a very interactive talker, so I'm glad that an unconscious person shares my ability.Pro talks about 1st person, and 3rd person:"We must first observe that if these expirences where all physical that I would be able to view them in third person, but since I'm not able to do such a thing then we can see that these expierences aren't physical."My response:Is this a grammar argument?"I would be able to view" is in 1st person, because the subject pronoun "I" is used.Go ahead, try to make a sentence in 3rd person while only using the subject pronoun I and no other subjects.So "I" itself can never do something in third person; "I" is a pronoun subject to 1st person and the "we" pronoun if used with another subject.But I can look at myself. Looking requires eyes, and a brain, both of which are physical, and myself is also a physical entity. Seems like this 1st person experience is naturally physical.Whew...on to Pro's defense of Teleology:"the fact of it's utter design in nature and its perfect symmetry shows that there is a unique design behind this object"My response:Design implies intelligence, and the water cycle is unintelligent; the sun is unintelligent as it drives the water cycle. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom non-intellectually form a crystalline structure that is radially symmetrical, at freezing temperatures, which are also unintelligent.This is not design, its a result of natural processes that yield a proportional shape. The laws between atoms are unintelligent as well. I didn't drop it.Pro continues:"In the universe there are only two places where they could have been found; the Big Bang and Black Holes."My response:Finally a science claim! the word "singularity," I must reluctantly admit, means "Scientists don't know."The singularity of a black hole is not related to the singularity of the big bang...scientists just don't know what's at the center of a black hole, and scientists are very close, but remain unsure about the big bang's singularity.What is known is that the big bang originated from quantum fluctuations the size of a sub nuclear particle, and expanded to the universe we see today; I provided sources on that in the first round.So the singularity in a black hole is UNRELATED to the singularity of the big bang; Pro has conjoined the two mutually exclusive ideas that simply mean "we don't really know."So there is no reason to believe that the big bang originated from a black hole and there is every reason to believe that it was expressed from quantum fluctuations at [+0,-0].Pro adds:"there was energy before the Big Bang"My response:Nope. Aside from the temporal issue with "before," at [+0,-0] there was no matter, therefore there was no energy.After the big bang [+0,-0]-->[+1,-1] the zero energy universe allows for expansion [+1000,-1000]. This explains that the total energy is zero, but there is positive energy, which is part of the zero energy universe.Pro asserts:"God is transcendent meaning that he is unaffected by Spacetime"My response:Flagoiganberries are also unaffected by spacetime, and I don't need to support that idea with anything...no wait, that's crap, and so is an unfounded idea like god's transcendence; Pro never showed HOW transcendence is possible/necessary.About the zero energy + quantum fluctuation argument Pro says:"the universe has no room for growth and it shows that the universe has reached it's climax point"My response:I've shown growth with the theory...[+1.-1]-->[+1000.-1000]-->[+100000.-100000]-->[+100000000.-100000000], why are we to believe that the numbers can't simply keep increasing?Pro posits:"We can see that the universe will eventually have all matter equal to the gravity and will begin to contract back to the singularity."My response:Nope, all of the matter and all of the gravity are ALREADY equal, and thanks to dark energy's "pushing out" of galaxies, there is no need to assume a crunch; all of the positive energy can increase as long as all of the negative energy increases as well.Pro tries one last time to defend the MOA:"We can see that with his "flagoiganberry" that he simply conceding to the argument that God exists by shows it's usefulness."My response:"We can see" that the MOA can be used to reason anything, including imaginary words that have no meaning, whose concepts have no effect on the universe, and whose existence has not been demonstrated...flagoiganberry shows why the MOA is not the best tool for determining if things exist or not, and it shows that a flagoiganberry and the god have the same level of demonstration...none.To conclude:1. Pro has to demonstrate a creator of the universe.At zero matter and zero gravity [+0,-0] there is no spacetime; without time, creation, which is contingent on time, cannot occur and thus the universe was not created, and there's no need for a creator; the universe allows for time by having matter and space.2. Pro has to demonstrate that the creator of the universe is intelligent.Though there was no time for creation, Pro hasn't shown how an intelligent agent behind the big bang; if Pro had attempted to show that quantum fluctuations were intelligent, then maybe he could have made some ground on this, but Pro never demonstrated any intelligence involved in the universe's origins.3. Pro has to demonstrate that the creator of the universe is omnipotent.Though the universe was not created, Pro hasn't shown that this undemonstrative intelligence has every power.In fact, other than calling god the greatest possible being, there is no mention of god being all-powerful by Pro in the debate; no support, no reason to believe it is so.4. Pro has to demonstrate that the creator of the universe is omniscient.Though creation is nonsensical without time, Pro hasn't shown how this impossible creator knows everything.I didn't see any mention of god's knowledge or foresight throughout this debate, so without support for that, we really have no reason to believe that the undemonstrative, creator of the universe that wasn't created is not all-knowing.5. Pro has to demonstrate that #1-4 are all likely true to meet his burden that "God is more likely than not to exist."None of those have been demonstrated physically, contingent on physical reality, or logically, so we must reject the resolution based on such.Quantum fluctuations [+0,-0]-->big bang [+1,-1]-->existence does not speak to creation or a creator, and is the current supported model of the universe's origins. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...I reject the resolution based on such.