God exists..

I would like to note that Pro, who incorrectly accused *me* of copy-pasting my arguments, has copy-pasted the second half of their argument from the arguments of the user @lannan13. In Round 1, not copy-pasting was the *only* rule and Pro has violated it. This is plagiarism. I request voters to penalize Pro based on conduct.RebuttalsThe Big BangThe basic formula for the uncertainty principle *did* explain that the level of energy in a thermodynamic system may change temporarily. Energy and time are related by the relation explained in the formula according to one interpretation of the uncertainty principle. [1] The formula explains that the conservation of energy can be violated for a temporary period of time as a quantum fluctuation."It is often said that the uncertainty principle means energy is not strictly conserved in quantum mechanics—that you’re allowed to 'borrow' energy, as long as you “pay it back” in a time; the greater the violation, the briefer the period over which it can occur. Now, there are many legitimate readings of the energy-time uncertainty principle, but this is not one of them." [2] These quantum fluctuations can change the energy levels via. the negative energy exerted by gravity to form a singularity that could cause the Big Bang. [3]Logic & Truth1. Pro's logic for knowledge: If x knows anything, they need revelation from an omniscient y. But where does y derive this omniscience from? And there is no proof for this logic. 2. Pro says truth cannot evolve from electrochemical processes. Pro has not proven it. 3. Pro's only proof for the definite logic argument is the Bible. Why do you need someone? There is no scientific explanation. And Pro says logic cannot change, but has not proven it. Godel OAThe axioms and theorems that Pro has presented are known as the Godel Ontological Argument. It is from here that Pro copy-pasted their arguments. Nonetheless, I shall rebut them. 1. Pro's axioms and theorems are all bare assertions, i.e. they do not have any verifiable proof to support them. 2. By Axiom 5, "necessary existence is a positive property." How is it a positive property? This assertion has to be proven or is void. If x exists, that does not necessarily mean x is positive in a moral sense. Positivity must be justified objectively by Pro to fulfill their BoP, which has not been done.3. Axiom 5 also assumes existence is a definitive predicate of positivity, i.e. all existence is morally positive in an objective and subjective sense; this entails a debated probability on necessity. KCA1. While I agree with P1, I must nonetheless point out that Pro has not considered the exertion of negative energy by gravity, which could possibly cancel out all the positive energy to make the total sum of energy in the universe 0, i.e. the laws of physics *do not* restrict nothingness, via. the zero-energy hypothesis, which is logically consistent with existing laws. [4]2. That the Big Bang spontaneously created the universe is a *myth*, with no scientific support whatsoever. The Big Bang was a gradual heating-cooling expansion from a singularity. [5][6]3. I do not question the BGV theorem, which is accurate in stating the universe had a finite point, but why does that point have to be a sentient being?4. I have already depicted and proven that quantum fluctuations could have caused the Big Bang. As Pro now refutes the Big Bang itself, I would like to state that CMB radiation as a B-mode polarization was measured at 150 GHz in 2014 by the POLARBEAR experiment. [7] CMB radiation is thermal radiation left over from the baryon-plasma sea of the universe during the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago and act as proof of the Big Bang. [8][9]"The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure: the stars and galaxies of today." [10]Teleology1. In their Round 1 argument from design, Pro *also* did not provide *any* examples for the prescribed teleology of the universe. Therefore, the penalization is equal and void. Nonetheless, I shall provide the example of prescribed [human] immorality. Why does it exist? Pro says humans have abused free will, but God can remove *that* aspect of free will of God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.2. Pro has not rebutted my entropy argument in any way. I extend it to this round.Occam's Razor1. Pro says Occam's Razor is unreliable. But that is the *general interpretation* of Occam's Razor and *not* my application of Russell's teapot via. Law of Parsimony. This was stated by me in the previous round and has not been refuted by Pro.2. "All of Con's arguments are mere theories ..." I have *proven* quantum fluctuations, which Pro merely did not understand the formula of. I have shown the application of Occam's Razor. I shall now rebut Pro's other arguments.General Rebuttals1. If infinity is possible, it *still* does not prove God. This argument is irrelevant to the resolution. Also note that this argument was copy-pasted from http://www.toptenz.net...;2. According to most scientific theories, life originated via. abiogenesis. How *can* God create life? If you oppose abiogenesis, then God is an organism, which asks the question: where did God come from?3. Chemical synthesis, according to a scientific study, is a more likely explanation to life than design. [11]This resolution is negated. Vote Con.References[1] http://goo.gl... [2] Griffiths, D.J. (2005) [3] http://goo.gl... [4] http://goo.gl...;[5] Lemaitre, Georges (1927). [6] Hubble, Edwin (1929). [7] http://goo.gl...;[8] http://goo.gl...;- PDF. Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W. (1965). [9] http://goo.gl...;[10] http://www.mpg.de...;[11] http://goo.gl...;