Religion is incorrect

First of all, I don't think you fully understand the Ontological argument. It is a complete and utter assumption. To say that a maximally great being could exist, it must exist is illgical. Granted it may be true that a maximally great being could exist, that is what the debate is about, but that can in no way be used as evidence in this debate. It hardly even makes sence. I'll give you an example. Magical pandas specially suited for the cold could live on Pluto. It's entirely possible. But much like a god, it is extremley unlikley. I personally don't think this could be used as evidence for either side so I am going to leave it now.Multiverse rebuttal: The infinite universe model probably is correct and according to all calculations is. The scientists you used against me, I.E Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilken argue a new point of mine. The Big Bang does not defy the laws of Quantum Thermodynamics. First off, I will congratualte you on almost taking down the infine universe span argument, though you used the term multiverses incorrectly. Multiverses are Universes which exist at the same time and with the same laws of physics as all others. It is thorized that this argument is true. Google it :) But the infinite universe span argument I feel you took down almost completley. Right, down to Buisiness. First, the three cosmologists you used in your argument did not debunk that argument. They debunked the fact that the universe could be infinite into the past, in other words, they proved the universe had a beginning. Our universe is not the same universe as it's predessessor. And would not act as such in calculations. My argument of an infinite span therefore holds.When a universe collapses in on it's self, all matter is technicaly destroyed and revrted to energy. The energy is not destroyed nor created in the ensuing "explosion of matter." Thus, the same amkunt of energy will go into every universe, it is that energy that forms elementary particles ( particeles with no sub-structure, and are made up of only themselves) which once they cool to below about 170 MeV, a temperature at which free quarks and gluons cannot exist, thus they are attracted by color confinement into mesons and baryons. So it does not defy the first law of thermodynamics. The second law, that an explosion can only create disorder and never order. This is because the word "explosion" is used in a non literal sense. It shows how fast the universe expanded from only energy. Vilekin has even been quoted to say "If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning." So I think I debunked that well.Rebuttal for rebuttal:You tried to rebutt my statement saying many join religion becuase a diety can be proven. When I have just proven that a diety cannot be proven. I am also going to leave that Pascal's wager thing because it has no relevance to the debate.You tried to argue that time does exist. When I said time does not exist I meant as a physical thing asnd thus is not affected by the lws of physics. Dreams happen but it would be rediculous to say they exist. In that sence of the word anyway. Time follows Stephen Hawking's no boundary proposal, that is finite but without any real boundary. Like a sphere. It is finite in surface area yet it has no real start or end. In other words it can be taken to have finite space ( not physical space of course) but no start or finish. Easy to understand but hard to imagine. Time also appears to speed up at close to c because of this. As you move faster, time which has a set pace and at higher speeds it is possible to ove along the space-time contniuum. And black holes do not have the ability to pull on time, black hles pull things in with such a force that even light cannot escape it. At the centre of a blackhole all the matter that has been pulled in is probably crushed into a superdense singularity which will ultimatley collapse in on it's self. The code of The Code of Hammurabi is evidence of laws of the Babylonian period. However societies existed before that. Take the homo erectus colonization of europe. This dates back to 1.8 million years ago. They were legiable umanoids and survived much as we do now. Making housing nas shelter, killing and eating. Yet like I said disputes were settled in the tribe by killing each other. They did not honour these dead. Much less so infact, they were given cruder brurials if any at all and almost no morlas did exist in those societies. God did not create morals. If he did, there would have been no holocaust, there would have been no world wars. Human morals are brounght on by social deologies. This is the correct and only viable explanation for morals. Your argument about the multiverses is totally seperate to what I said. The multiverse is the hypothesis that an infinite number of universes could exist in multiple dimensions. Lawrence Krauss proved that the physical constants in each universe could be different. However I am not talking about the macroverse. When I said "A correct explanation for this is that because the existence of the universe/macroverse is ultimately dependant on the last, the math would dictate that each time the cycle of the universe is completely identical" I meant not the multiverse which is how you incorrectly interperated it, rather I meant and said the cycle of the specific universe would be the same as the one which created it. So your point is redundant.So onto your next peice of rebuttal. The argument is an analogy. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. You did correctly use that analogy, and you kind of argued my point. That is how perfect the cosmolgical constants have to be in order to create a universe. That is how perfect they are every time as the cycle of the universe is the smae, everytime as I have already proved. Your final peice of rebuttal. You said that I implied I wanted people to live life the way I want them too. I never said that. I said that I wanted people to live their life like they want to, becuase this is their only life, and it is short. Following someone's teachings is not how you want to live your life. It is how someone else who probably isn't real wants you to live it. ( I said 99% only to give the point that there is a high chance there is no god) And don't say you wnat to live your life like that, becuase though you may be happy, youa re not following your own initiaive, you are giving your only life to a possibility.Finally some points of my own and a summary.First of all, some physisists like Raj Pathria or I.J.Good have proposed that our universe is the centre of a black hole, inside a different unoverse, which is the centre of a black hole. I don't think either of us have a leg to stand on when it comes to blackhole thermodynamics. We are in highschool. But the point of this argument is that everything can be explianed in the absence of a deity. Everything. There is no physical need for a deity nor is their a physical possibility of a deity. Like you said yourself, you cannot create something out of nothing, and God must have a begining, so what made God? In my opinion ther eos no God.Afew questions for you though. Why did you chose christianity over all the other religions? Greek mythology has been dissmissed as fictional, but it could be, by your standards, true. And if there is a god, why did he make me an atheist?Summary It s the opinion of the proposition that there is no God or deity otherwise as everything can be explained in the absence of a god but Gods cannot be proven at all. Thank you and I encourage you to vote for the proposition.BTW, that was an awsome debate, thanks! Will put sources in the comments