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

That being said, I did notice a few flaws in his argument, and he actually made a very good argument for me in his last round! "Stubs confirmed again that he knows that a possible world is irrelevant to reality but he still continues to later say how it is relevant. He's very inconsistent with what a possible world is and frankly, I don't think that he really understands the concept. " I believe I gave a very good description of possible worlds in round 2. A possible world is the way the world might have been. A possible world is not a planet nor a universe. It is just a world description. The actual world is the description that is true. Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true. A possible world is irrelevant to reality in instances like unicorns. Unicorns exist in a possible world, but not in the actual world. They are contingent. A non-contingent being (such as God) either exist in all possible worlds due to necessity or no possible worlds due to impossibility. "Pro tries to explain how his possible world idea is still valid. He states that a god is relevant to reality in a possible world because he is non-contingent. There is no proof however, that a god, if one existed, is non-contingent. A god and/or a maximally great being have never been observed to find out if they are non-contingent" Being metaphysically necessary is one of the maximally excellent qualities. For it is better to be necessary than contingent. So when we defined God as a maximally great being, we have to believe his is a non-contingent being. "This is where Pro gets carried away with the idea of my example being a banana. How is my magic banana not metaphysically necessary? There is just as much evidence for my banana as your god! I defined my banana as maximally great, you can't change its definition. " This was my favorite part of you last round (: For one a banana is not metaphysically necessary. I have shown that in the last round. Furthermore, you went on to make an argument for the theist! I defined God as maximally great. You defined your magic banana as maximally great. We are making an argument for the same exact thing! We are both arguing for a maximally great being, I just called mine God and you called yours a magic banana. This is almost exactly what Peter Atkins did in his debate against William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig said that God caused the universe and Peter Atkins said he thought it was a computer, a timeless, immaterial, all-powerful computer. All Peter Atkins did was replace "God" with the word "computer" and all you did was replace the word "God" with "magic banana. " "I'm sure that if you looked online that you could find many different, smaller religion with maximally great gods. I even made up one! " This still does not have any bearing on my argument. I am arguing only for a maximally great being. Not a deity of any specific religion. "Ok, this argument wasn't resting on the adjective extraordinary. " Of course it was. You said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. " While I already showed that this is false, extraordinary is a very subjective word. What might constitute as extraordinary evidence for me, may not constitute as extraordinary evidence for you. "Pro took what I said out of context here. That is bad conduct. What I was saying about the Big Bang is that a god is not required with the theory. We have an explanation for how the universe started without a god involved. " I would strongly argue that I took none of what you said out of context. I disagree that the big bang is an explanation for how the universe started without a god being involved. The Big Bang theory only describes what happened at the big bang, and then describes the expansion of the universe after. The Big Bang theory does not describe what caused the big bang to occur. "I didn't say that religion was false by this, I was pointing out a fact about religion. " Okay, then it is not an argument and is irrelevant to the debate. Conclusion: I do agree that most of the possible worlds are not reality (I say most because the actual world is a possible world. ) God is a non-contingent, metaphysically necessary being. That means that if he exists in a possible world, he exists in all of them. HunterSego has not shown this to be false, nor has he shown that God does not exist in any possible world. He continued to try and parody the ontological argument, but only made an argument for the same being I was arguing for. The resolution has been affirmed.