It is more probable that god exists: qopel debate

Ave!ProbabilityQopel (hereby referred to as Con) claims that he automatically wins the debate because I haven't given any numbers about the probability of god existing. Sadly, his reasoning is deeply flawed. In the first round of the debate, I defined probability as inference to the best conclusion. I did not define it as what is statistically most likely. All of reasoning is based off of a horrendous misunderstanding. I personally find this ironic, because his arrogant chortling was actually an embarrassing mistake for him.Anyways, let's move on to the arguments for the existence of god.Contingency ArgumentP1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.P2) The universe exists.P3) The universe has an explanation of its existence.P4) The explanation of the universe is not due to necessity.P5) The explanation of the universe is due to an external cause.P6) The external cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, and personal.P7) If god existed, he would at least have the traits of being spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, and personal.C: The external cause of the universe is god.Principle of Sufficient ReasonFor every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs. Due to this principle, the universe could not have existed without cause.The Universe is Not NecessaryIt is easy to conceive of some logical state of affairs where the universe does not exist. There is nothing in logic that would require the universe to exist necessarily. From this alone, we have very good reason to believe that the universe does not exist necessarily.There is also the problem of an actual infinity. If the universe exists necessarily, then it existed eternally. If the universe existed eternally, then it existed an infinite amount of time ago. But this would mean that there would be an infinite number of events before the present moment, making this debate impossible. Ergo, the universe could not exist necessarily.Something cannot come from nothingThe universe could not have come from nothing. If the universe had come from nothing, then that 'nothing' would have the property of something coming from it. Nothing is the state of having no properties. If the universe came from nothing, then it wouldn't be nothing at all!Virtual particles are given as an example of something coming from nothing. But virtual particles don't come from nothing! They come from the quantum vacuum, which consists of known physical laws, and fundamental asymmetriesThe Need for a Necessary CauseThe universe didn't come from nothing. The universe isn't eternal or necessary. The only option left is that the universe had an external cause of it coming into being. Since time began to exist during the Big Bang, the cause must be sans (without) time. Ditto for space and matter. The enormous power required to create the universe to exist suggests that the cause is omnipotent. Finally, the cause must be personal because it decided to bring another state of affairs into existence.In conclusion, the most plausible explanation of the universe coming into being is a personal, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, omnipotent, necessary being.Ontological ArgumentP1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.Possible WorldA Possible World is a Maximal Description of Reality, not planets or a universe. It's just a way reality might be. Imagine a huge conjunction where propositions, p, q, r, s " and worlds, W1, W2, etc:A possible world is a conjunction which comprises every proposition or its contrary. Such a conjunction yields a maximal description of reality"nothing is left out. So by negating different conjuncts in a maximal description of reality would yield different worlds:W1 = p, q, r, s "W2 = p, "q, r, "s "W3 = "p, "q, r, s "Only one of these worlds can be the actual world, that is a world with all true conjuncts. Possible world conjuncts must be capable of being true individually and together. For example, The prime minister is a prime number isn"t even possibly true!Saying God exists in some possible world means the proposition: God exists is true in some maximal description of reality. Thus God is "maximally excellent" in every possible world: God has "maximal greatness."To have Maximal Excellence is to possess great making properties. Great making properties are things like omniscience, omnipotence, moral perfection, etc. But we can gradually discover what a great making property is, without undermining the objective notion that God would, by definition, possess all such properties.Maximal Greatness is thus possibly exemplified. But then it must exist in a maximally excellent way in every possible world, including the actual world, therefore God exists.Moral ArgumentP1) If god does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not ext.P2) Objective moral values and duties exist.C) God exists. Moral Truth ExistsThere are three forms of moral relativism, all of which claim that objective morality does not exist. This has obvious implication on the moral argument, because premise two can't be true if relativism is true. So, it is vital to demonstrate that moral truth exists.Descriptive relativism argues that moral conflict exists. This view doesn't have any implications on the objectivity of morality. If I say that voodoo practices are justified by physics, and Victor Stenger tells me otherwise, then the logic implies that there must not be any truths to be known about physics! But there are truths to be known about physics, so descriptive relativism can't disprove moral truth.Meta-ethical relativism argues that when there is moral conflict, no side is actually right or wrong, because objective rights and wrong do not actually exist. However, there are good reasons to believe that right and wrong actually exist. The following is an argument for moral truth.1) For any action A affecting some person P, if A has moral content, then A cannot be amoral2) If such morals exist, then they would exist necessarily3) Some objective moral knowledge exists4) Moral truth existsErgo, meta-ethical relativism cannot be true.Finally, we approach normative relativism. This argues that since there is no objective right or wrong, we should be tolerant of other people's actions and behaviors, even if we find them to be wrong. However, this presents us with a contradiction. Tolerance is treated as a universal moral value that we should all act by. A moral relativist in America thinks we should tolerate other moral systems, and a moral relativist in Brazil would believe the same. On relativism, everybody should be tolerant of other people's morality. Ergo, tolerance is assumed as objectively moral, making normative relativism self-contradictory.God and Objective Morality"'An objective moral prescriber is necessary for objective moral prescriptions, and an objective moral standard is necessary for objective moral values. God is a maximally great being, and since it's intuitively greater to be the standard of moral perfection rather than exemplify it, then it follows that God would be the moral standard were he to exist, which makes him uniquely qualified in issuing commands. Therefore, God is the most plausible and least arbitrary standard, necessary for moral reality.'" -Apeiron, DDO philosopher of science and geophysicist/Conclusion: inference to the best conclusion makes god most probable.Vale!