The Christian God exists

My opponent's arguments are too inane for me to further address. If he brings up some arguments that prove the Christian God exists, I'll be happy to debate him on it. At this point he isn't even arguing the resolution. He starts off his last round with, "As I said I am not claiming that I can prove that God exists with absolute certainty. I am just saying that on balance of evidence theism is more plausible than not." 1) That isn't what the resolution is concerning. It is concerning the existence of the Christian god, not the possibility that a god is more plausible than not.2) Even if he indefinitely proved that theism is more plausible than not, he would not have evidence in his favor which would demonstrate that the theistic prime mover was in fact the Christian God.3) If his arguments aren't centered around the agreed upon resolution and even if argued effectively would leave him without fulfilling his BOP, then it is impossible for him to win.The universe had a beginningMy opponent does not mention anything that asserts, let alone proves through contention form, that this is the Christian God who was the creator. If he is just use unspecific language like, "infinitely powerful being," of which there are hundreds mentioned in holy books throughout human hstory, then we are left without any evidence or even assertion of a point that would help his side."The Universe doesn't require a deity to set it in motion, and may as well be its own cause"My opponent babbles on about how unlikely it is for the universe to start itself, but fails to place the same skepticism on his own dogmatic claim, the old Bible Belt cop-out: GAWD DIJIT!! hurr hurrr! The point I made still stands, they are both equally likely. If a god comes out of nowhere to make a universe, how is that any more likely than the only things that we can perceive being their own cause. The evidence of the universe is all around us, the evidence for god is either atrocious, hear-say, or nonexistent. So, if you think a supernatural "infinitely powerful being" for which there is no concrete evidence is more likely to originate on its own than the only observable and tangible material known to humans, then you are being incredibly intellectually dishonest or are crudely, proudly, and dogmatically ignorant."The universe is perfectly balanced is simply not true"My opponent convieniently avoids every point of contention I raised with his utopian ideas of god's perfect play house that is so perfect that pitiful exterminations, disaterous explosions, innumerable failures, and unexplained phenomena occur within.... The reason he forfeited these points is the same intellectually dishonest reasons for his dogmatic, irrational assertions spewed forth in the previous "rebuttal," althought I hardly would consider dodging evidence and claiming special privileges to avoid logic a rebuttal. Once again, even if the universe's forces and particles were in perfect balance, that wouldn't mean that a deity willed it into existence. This is a fallacy: Universe is balanced; therefore, god. It is arrogant to believe that the universe was "finely tuned" for a specific species of ape, on a tiny planet, orbiting a tiny star.A few more objections to this argument:1) Was there pre-existing material for this creator deity to work with, or did he just will it into existence. 2) Who designed the designer? Why are there so many shooting stars, collapsed suns, failed galaxies, total destruction of unimaginable sweeps of outerspace? Is this some kind of perfectly balanced or fine tuned universe, and if it was created by a creator, then why would he design the universe so ineptly (and that's just in outerspace, not including earth or human bodies)?3) If the universe is so perfectly balanced as to suggest a benevolent deity, why is the andromeda galaxy headed directly toward us in such a clear-cut case for destruction? Or, what about the sun, when it expands and engulfs earth, boiling our oceans and killing all life here, does that suggest a design, fine tuning, or perfect balance from a Christian god. Absolutely not."The protons mass is exactly what it should be in order to provide stability for the entire universe."Oh, is that why the universe is exapnding at an accelerating rate until the point at which all molecular movement stops? Wow, that's an incredibly "stable" universe. That's basically like the argument the federal reserve gives, stating that one of its two main objectives is price stability when all it does is print money causing constant inflation and thus constant price raises. Also, you didn't assert a Chrisian deity in this, only that, "A master Designer planned" it. Because, remember a master designer would build something for its principle objects of fascination that would have millions of complete extermination certainties. Yeah.... "Without that delicate balance the universe would collapse."Care to wait around for a dozen billion years to watch your perfectly-balanced universe cease all kinetic movement?If the universe were truly "perfectly balanced," why would most planet orbits be unstable"Once again I have shown the universe is perfectly balanced which points to intelligent design."Your silly little idea of intelligent design didn't stand up as representing reality in court, or in the scientific community, or in most churches due to the "Theistic Evolution" and "Theistic Comsology" ideas that are gaining traction. Intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design is not an accepted scientific theory.My opponent then continues to talk about the nature of matter without tying any direct links to how this proves the Christian God exists as the resolution states.Something can't come from nothing "All of matter could not be eternal since material itself is by definition not transcendent and subject to the law of cause and effect."Once again, if you apply this law of cause and effect to your OWN ARGUMENTS, then you wouldn't be asserting that god is the first effect from his self-cause...Jesus "In antiquity the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity." I don't deny he was a real human being, because of the manipulation of the story of his birth. However, there is about as much evidence for his existence as that of Socrates.Also, if Jesus existed that doesn't mean he was the son of god. There is much more evidence for the existence of Muhammad than Jesus, and he claimed to be the final prophet. So does that mean he was? No. Once you have established some evidence on Jesus or metaphysical claims about him, let me know.He closes with: "My OPP has tried use science to disprove God as many people do but then when science is used to prove Gods existence they say science is tentative anyway. It cannot be both."I didn't try to use science to disprove god. Remember, you have the burden of proof and I have the burden of rejoinder. If you bring something up, I have to address it. You babbled on incoherently about science without tying any direct links to the Christian God, so I demonstrated why what you said completely failed logically and rhetorically.Conclusion My opponent has presented no evidence that demonstrates that the Christian God exists. He merely comments on how awesome the universe is and that Jesus was a human. In all opportunistic spots, he regrets to tie direct links to the resolution, and instead babbles on incoherently. I have upheld by burden of rejoinder, while Pro has yet to have a single argument clearly affirm the resolution. He has provided zero sources for the entirety of the debate and has made zero legitimate arguments. I almost didn't type this debate round out, because my opponent's arguments were so flagrantly oozing with ineptitude, but I realized fighting theists and statists makes the world a better place :DVOTE CON :D