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

Thanks to Con for his argument. You are allowed to post whatever you like in the 5th round (even new arguments) because we did not specify in the first round. Con seems to think he does not have to give a reason to show God does not exist. While his burden of proof is to show that it is more likely God does not exist, that would be nearly impossible to do if he does not give any reason to believe in atheism. Even if he tries to prove that God is not necessary, that still does not mean that God does not exist. If Con wants to show that God does not exist he must give evidence for belief in atheism. I am still sad to see that this debate is turning into old testament ethics, but I will defend it anyways. I think my opponent is misinterpreting "assembly of the LORD" in the verse he provided of Deuteronomy 23:2. Assembly is generally the term is used in Deuteronomy to refer to Israel gathered at Horeb/Sinai. To say that a descendant of a forbidden marriage cannot enter the "assembly of the LORD" is not something unjust when we realize that the Assembly is only talking about Israel gathering at Horeb/Sinai. "The universe is the particular bubble of space-time we are in. Pro's argument assumes that this is the only bubble of space-time with matter in existence. Surely even pro believes that there is more in existence than just this universe." I do not believe it is likely that there is more in existence than just this universe because we have no astrophysical or cosmological evidence to give even slight verification to such a claim. "Pro can propose all the things he likes but he does not know about every kind of thing that exists outside space-time and so cannot know that a mind is the thing that can create a universe. Therefore, the cosmological argument fails to prove that God exists." I am not saying I know every kind of thing that exist outside of space and time. I am saying there are things that this being would necessarily be in order to be logically coherent. I have already showed that this being would have to be personal, timeless, changeless, immaterial, and extremely powerful not because that is what I like to think but because it is logically necessary as I proved in round two. I will post this argument again: My opponent even said, "The only requirement for this cause is that it exist outside of time." But, anything that is outside of time must also be changeless because if something is not changeless then we will see an infinite amount of times this "thing" changed. And as I have already pointed out an actual infinite amount of things cannot exist. Therefore, if this being must exist outside of time and must also be changeless it must also be immaterial because material things are always changing at least on the atomical and molecular levels. This being must also be personal because personhood is implied by the timelessness and immaterialness of the cause. Simply because, again, the only thing that can possess these qualities are abstract objects or unembodied minds. This being must also be unimaginably powerful since it created the world out of nothing. "My problem with this is that we don't have any evidence for the existence of the mind, an unembodied mind, or a timeless mind." I am arguing it exist necessarily and logically. (See above) "If this is true, then pro is admitting that it is possible to create energy out of nothing. I have never argued that the universe came from nothing. It could have been transformed from another state." Possible for God to create out of nothing? Yes. For energy to appear from nothing by nothing I don't think is plausible. There is not evidence of there ever being another state before the big bang. "The God prediction has been shown to be wrong when it comes to the complexity of life" While this is false, it is not my main argument. As I gave a citation for earlier, even Darwin himself believed in an initial creator to get things going. Dawkins even says that life seems to have been designed for a purpose (citation above). "So we can still make a probability judgment even when we don't know exactly what started the universe, however we just can't be completely sure." That is exactly what I am saying. I am not trying to argue that we have 100% mathematical certainty that God created the universe, but I think it is much more likely that he did rather than the negation. "All I am pointing out is that as long as multiple universes are possible, pro cannot assume there is only one universe, and so cannot calculate the odds that at least one universe is right for life." Of course it is reasonable to assume there is only one universe since there is no evidence of a multiverse. This is a metaphysical truth that most assume just as they assume other metaphysical truths such as, "how do we know the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age and memory." We all assume this to be true when debating but there is no cosmological evidence against it. "That is true, but what I am saying is that evolution showed how the greatest fine-tuning in the universe, the complexity of life is actually explained through natural processes." My arguments for fine tuning does not try to explain the complexity of life, but rather the complexity of the initial conditions. "Pro cannot say that it is more probably that God made the first living organism because this reasoning is based on the design argument, and the design argument has been refuted." My reasoning is not based on the design argument. It is based on the fact that non living matter cannot logically produce living matter. Leaving the best explanation of life to God. "To suppose the existence of an invisible person who exists outside time who made our universe, is a clear violation because such an explanation isn't necessary when natural processes can account for complexity just fine." Natural process cannot explain the complex initial conditions or the turning of non living matter into living matter. I am arguing that God exist out of necessity to answer such questions. "Anyway, what are the chances that existence is lucky enough to contain a powerful, intelligent mind existing timelessly without cause?" Again, I wouldn't say that it is luck that the cause contains these qualities, but rather out of necessity the being logically needs to possess these qualities. I wish my opponent had given me at least one argument against Gods existence to negate, but maybe he is saving it for the fifth round so that I can not refute it. I said in the beginning of the debate that I would offer two basic contentions: That there are good reasons to believe theism is true, and not sufficiently good reasons to believe atheism is true. Con, so far, has not been able to refute that either a multiverse, or creation from nothing by nothing is more probable than a God creating the universe. Con also has not been able to explain the complexity of the initial conditions of the big bang. He only tried to defend the complexity of the life forms. Thus, since he could not refute my initial two arguments and did not give any evidence against the existence God I believe I have shown it to be more probable that God exist than God does not exist. Thank you for the debate. It has been fun.