It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

Thanks to my opponent for her response. She has stated that the Kalam Cosmological argument is contradictory. But is this true? Who created God? "The question presupposes that all things need a creator -- even the eternal sequence of creators -- which becomes logically absurd. Furthermore, if there is an eternal regression of creators that are eternal, then the question is not answered. In fact, it cannot be answered, since its weakness is that "all things need a creator." Of course, this only begs the question in that how did the process begin? Therefore, the question only raises the same problem it asks, and it is a question that, by its own design, cannot be answered. Therefore, it is invalid." [1] Furthermore, the premise is that "Whatever begins to exists has a cause." God did not begin to exists. He exists eternally. Therefore, he does not need to have a cause. Why can't the universe be causeless? This is simple. Nothing comes into existence without an efficient cause. This is the reason we don't see dogs and cats just popping into and out of existence. Why should a hypothetical cause have any of the common attributes of a god? I answered this in the second round, but I will post it again here. Since everything that begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist, we must look to see what the cause has to be. The cause would have to be an abstract object such as numbers or a personal mind. The personal mind would have to outside of space and time, immaterial, personal and powerful. It cannot be an abstract object because they cannot cause anything. The personal mind would have to be outside space and time and be immaterial in order to be logically coherent. These are all attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (Maximally Great Being). "Your second argument seems to be Argument from ignorance, a common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room' for a god." It is not an argument from ignorance, nor does it attempt to shift the burden of proof. I take full burden of proof for that argument. You did not make any objections to it so I am forced to assume you agree with the arguments conclusion that a maximally great being exists. Since that is the resolution, if you do not make any objections to it than I have won the debate. "I raise my own point, that the existence of this God is irrational because of its strange disappearances. Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs?" I think that God has given us more than sufficient reason to believe in his existence. You would need to show that if God exists, than we would expect to see more evidence. However, this is nearly impossible to prove due to our epistemological limitations. "Also, If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, but also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years –waiting as the galaxies, stars and planets formed" Efficiency only matters to those with limited time or limited materials. God has neither of those limitations. Therefore He could have taken as long as he wanted. Regardless, this does not show that a maximally great being does not exists. If it shows anything, it only shows the maximally great being took about 13.7 billion years with creating the universe. "Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly." Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are completely falsifiable. If you could show a contradiction in God then the belief in God as a maximally great being would be falsified. Conclusion: I have responded to all of my opponents refutations. The key in this debate was the ontological argument because it concludes that a maximally great being exists, which is the resolution to this debate. My opponent did not even attempt to refute any of the premises, nor did she try and show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In light of this, I strongly believe that the resolution has been affirmed. Thank you [1] http://carm.org...