God exists.

Rebuttals:Objection 1 to argument 1It establish part of the definition of God provided.Objection 2 to argument 1"than that they are the result of some unknown physical law?" There is no physical law that determines the physical constants. That would be necessity which I refuted.Objection 3 to argument 1 This has been debunked by John Leslie's analogy of the firing squad. A man is sentenced to death by firing squad. the commander goes 1.. 2. 3 and the soldiers fire. The man who is standing infront of the fring squad goes something like " Well of course I survived because I am here to observe it now" But then that only documents the observation without answering WHY that event happens. Same goes for your "critique" It is ridicolous for the man to go saying "Well I can not decide how unlikely that event is because there is no parallel universes where I can compare the same event. Do you see how ridicolous this sounds? We can see measure the likelihood of this event by loading the data on to the computer and changing various factors to see how unlikely the fine tuning was same thing physicists and mathematicians do with the fine tuning of the universe.Objection 4 to argument 1 My argument has nothing to do with the design of life so I am not sure how is that even relevant but here it goes anyways ... The reason why God created the universe that ALLOWED life is because it is the test-takers that benefit from the test of life NOT the test-maker. When we are here, we can worship and love God which is shows how good life is. God benefits nothing. We benefit from the love and joy and worship of God."(1) qualia will never be accounted for in terms of matter, even with our most advanced neuroscience and physics millions of years in the future, and (2) property dualism is false. These are massive assumptions, he provides no sufficient argument for either of them, and one or the other would be rejected by most philosophers of mind today."Did not really assume, I provided evidence that you did not even bother reading probably."He attempts to use the interaction argument to refute dualism, but it is clearly silly to argue that because we do not know how our minds interact with the physical world, there is no mind independent physical world. It is self evident that our minds can interact with matter. Every science starts with certain basic assumptions that are self evident from observation. We may not fully understand how our minds interact with matter, but they clearly do."Glad to see that you agree with one of the premises which shows that my argument is valid. Dualism is false not just because of interaction argument actually.Objection 1 to argument 3 "First of all, even Plantinga doesn't think this is a proof of theism - he thinks it makes it rationally permissible to be a theist."How is this even relevant to the evidence or the validity of the argument?"Second, the premise that the MGB is possible is question begging, since it asserts that a necessary being exists in some possible world, which is the same thing as saying that it exists in every possible world. The premise is too close to the conclusion."This objection that the MOA commits Question-begging has been refuted in the my first round. Can we stop repeating the same refuted material, now?"my opponent has not provided any observational evidence for the definition of God that the argument takes off from, so the entire argument is invalid."I used philosophy and logic and deductive reasoning to establish the argument. Your objection is that it has no observation so it must be false. But that is ridicolous, do you have observational evidence for morals, logic, mathematics? No. This argument fits the definition because a maximally great being would have all the attributes in the definition like omnipotence and omniscience because potence and sciencia are both great-making property and it would have the maximal values of these properties.