It is most probable that a god exists.

Ave!Contingency ArgumentCon argue that the Big Bang explains why the universe exists. Unfortunately for his argument, the Big Bang does not explain why the universe exists. It only tells us about the evolution of the universe from a singularit about fourteen billion years ago. Wikipedia's article on the Big Bang explains:"There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."Con brings up the theory of evolution to explain why life exists. This is not relevant to the contignency argument at all. The contingency argument deals with the origins of the universe, and evolution deals with the origin of life on Earth. There is simply no reason to think that evolution has anything to do with the the contingency argument.Con also explains how (s)he thinks the Earth formed. Again, this is not at all relevant to the contingency argument for the reasons I gave above.Why couldn't it be a UFO? A UFO is an object. An object is physical. A physical object cannot have existed sans matter, like the cause of the universe would have. Therefore, a UFO could not have caused the universe to exist.The idea of a time traveler causing the universe to exist is just absurd. Why think that a time traveler would be capable of such an event? Furthermore, time has to exist for a time traveler to exist. Yet, the time traveler would have to exist sans time in order to cause the universe. But this means that the time traveler must exist without time, even though time is part of his essence! It is logically contradictory to posit a time traveler that exists before time.Con argues that there is nothing in modern science to show that the universe does not exist necessarily. However, I feel that there is very good astrophysical evidence to show that our universe began to exist. I quote: "Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardlessof the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. (One scientist has compared it to the regions on ancient maps labeled “Here there be dragons!”—it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies.) But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning." http://www.reasonablefaith.org... Ontologial ArgumentCon asserts that the ontological argument can only be true if multiverses exist. This is simply an embarrassing misundersanding of what 'possible worlds' means in modal logic. A possible world is not some alterantive universe or state of being. It's a logically possible state of affairs. As I said in my opening round, a Possible World is a Maximal Description of Reality, not planets or a universe.Con says he contests the validity of the argument. Sadly, he never gives us any reasons to think that the argument is logically invalid. I'll leave it to him the doubt the validity in the next round.Moral ArgumentCon's response to this argument is bizzare. Nowhere in my argument did I endorse the idea of Tabula rasa. In fact, the moral argument would be sound even if no humans existed! Because of this, there's no way for the argument to depend on nurture over nature.The only other argument Con gives is that religion has been wrong about what is moral. He never gives us any atheistic standard of right and wrong, so there's no way for him to claim that religion has been wrong about morality. His observation is ultimately pointless, because it has no bearing on the truth of the moral argument. He's fallaciously using epistemology against an argument about ontology.ConclusionCon's case is based off of misunderstandings of my arguments, non-sequiturs, and vague claims that the logic is invalid. These bold claims are not adequately justified in the last round. A vote for Pro is the superior choice.Vale!