God is not real.

Kalam Cosmological ArgumentWhen my opponent says 'Universe,' I apologize for misinterpreting his meaning. I feel obligated, however, to point out that, hypothetically speaking of course, time likely would not exist outside of a universe, in the void within the multiverse. It would be forceless space, and from the human perspective, very unreal.I agree with most of my opponent's references to the Kalam Argument, however, I disagree on one issue: his conclusion about the Cause. He concludes that the lack of ultimate explanation (for, while there is a partial explanation for the existence of individual universes, the explanation for the multiverse is yet totally absent), the Cause must be supernatural. I would contest that this is due to our lack of information; in ancient times, similar debates were held about the shape of Earth, and the smooth win most frequently went to the view that Earth was flat. Such a conclusion was the result of lacking information. Science of the time simply could not answer the questions at hand, so the people devised alternate solutions (this is, in fact, the origination of religion). Numerous 'scientific' and philosophical fiascoes have ensued because of such conclusions, beliefs that rats and maggots grew from rotting meat and trash, that fire was caused by phlogiston, that Earth was flat, and encased by 'celestial spheres,' that stars were gods, etc. It was hasty at those times, for the great thinkers to turn to such extravagant and supernatural solutions to their musings, and I suggest that it is now as well.Modal Ontological ArgumentThank you for the explanation. If my understanding is correct, it is much like the logic used in basic programming, with a progression of basic yeses and nos. If I further understand correctly, contingent refers to a state in question, and necessary refers to a control, or invariable asset. How am I doing so far?If I understand your explanation properly, you have just made an absolutely sublime case, which I cannot possibly refute. I would be wasting both of our time, and that of the audience, were I to flounder around in an attempt to dispute what you have said.Logical AbsenceI will not argue that the picture of the universe and its origins which science offers is far from complete. That the universe is not necessary is another point which cannot be argued. That science's explanation is incomplete does not make it irrational.Choice of the LikelierAt this point, we have gotten to more or less an impass: science reaches a point of incompletion that dissolves into speculation and guesswork, short even of hypothesis, which is the very quality that gives the argument of the divine an unlikely consideration. Neither side can do more than trade tit for tat now, and that would be an abominable regression from civilization. I posit, therefore, that the choice between the reality or unreality of 'God' is solely up to personal preference and opinion, which can hardly be disputed with reason. I further suggest that I am not qualified to continue this debate on the level to which my opponent, Nur-Ab-Sal, has taken it, whether the topic might hold its own in another's hands or not. That much said, I have only two further things to say:A. While it seems to be no significant inconvenience to me, I feel I should protest the Con's 'phone-a-friend' approach to aspects with which he is not well-versed; I have tried to carry out my part of the debate solely on my own merit, and I think the bequest of advice or assistance should be avoided, though, since it was not addressed in the rules, it is acceptable.B. A lovely debate it certainly has been, though I fear there are rapidly fewer points for my opponent to bring up that I can competently address, and rapidly fewer points that I could bring up that my opponent could not defenestrate. I thus turn the floor over to the Con, be it as of the steps of his victory.