It is probable that God exists

------------- Con: If it is possible for something to exist without needing a creator (God), Then why does the universe need a creator? Rebuttal: Con assumes that it is possible for something to exist without needing a creator. However, Since the big bang occurred (the universe began to exist) it must have a cause given self-evident metaphysical principles. Therefore, Any existent thing which came after the big bang and is within the universe owes it's existence to the creator/causer of the big bang which brought the universe into existence. In other words, Nothing could exist without the need for a creator/causer which caused the big bang and therefore the whole universe into existence. Con: Considering we know the universe is expanding, It's more likely to assume the universe undergoes a constant expansion and contraction cycle, It could therefore be the cause of the big bang. Rebuttal: This contraction cycle came after the big bang and could therefore not be the cause of the big bang. To say otherwise goes against the big bang itself. The universe began to expand after the big bang so that doesn't say anything about it being the cause of the big bang. It's simply not possible. Furthermore, As this cause brought the whole universe into existence it has to be extremely powerful. It also has to be personal because an impersonal cause cannot give rise to a temporal effect. To propose that this cycle has any of those properties is ridiculous. It could not have caused the big bang. Con: It would be more logical to say this cycle has been going on for an infinite amount of time, Rather than, To suggest a God has existed for an infinite amount of time. Arguing for an uncaused cause does not demonstrate the existence of a God, It only introduces more questions, The question here is simple, Why does an uncaused cause have to be a God? ' Rebuttal: Con cannot possibly show that this cycle has been going on for an infinite amount of time as he cannot even show that it existed before the big bang. Even if it did, This cycle had to be timeless, Spaceless and immaterial because time, Space and matter began at the Big Bang. So Con would argue that a timeless, Spaceless and immaterial cycle has been going on forever. This is Beyond laughable. As for why the uncaused have to be a God, This needs some clarification. I am arguing for the existence of a maximally great being with great properties. You can call this God. An uncaused causer is not what makes it God alone, It also has to have those other properties which I have shown in my 'Why God' premise. Con: If there was no time and only God before the creation of the universe, Then what was God doing before creating the universe? Rebuttal: It doesn't matter what he did before creating the universe. This has no bearing on his existence or non-existence. Con: God is an extraordinary claim to which we require extra ordinary evidence, Deductive reasoning is not extra ordinary evidence, Therefore the resolution was never met. Rebuttal: This assumes that God is an extraordinary claim in the first Place. It is not. If the Kalam argument is sound, Then God is not an extraordinary claim. I'm arguing that since the universe began to exist and since everything which begins to exist must have a cause, It follows that the universe had a cause. As I showed in my 'Why God' premise, This cause must be timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, Changeless, Uncaused, Personal, And unimaginable powerful. This cause must also transcend both matter and time. God is therefore not an extraordinary claim, God is the most sensible explanation for the cause of the universe. Con: Pro has not made a single argument from science and has thus far failed to meet his burden of proof. The existence of a God remains improbable. Rebuttal: How do you know your great great great great grandmother existed? Have you ever seen her? No, But you know she existed because you are here now. Scientifically, We have no clue. However, We rationally and logically came to this conclusion. Not because of the physical world, But because of neccesity. The Kalam argument is necessarily true if the premises are sound and the conclusion follows from the premises. Con: Even if an uncaused cause is needed for the creation of the universe, Pro has not demonstrated that such a cause is omnipresent, Omnipotent and a God. Rebuttal: I said I would be arguing for the existence of a maximally great being with great Properties. I gave those Properties in my second round. It doesn't matter much if we Call this being God or not. The important point is that such a being exists and is the cause of the universe as I have shown. Most would take this being to be God, There is also no problem With that. As for being omnipotent, I think everybody would agree that whatever caused something as the universe must have been omnipotent. What else could it be? Weak? Omnipotence Paradox Con made some points here. Let us look at them. [1] Omnipotence is logically impossible, As we both agree. A: Omnipotence is not logically impossible because omnipotence entails actualizing logical impossibilities. Remember that this Paradox necessitates omnipotence for this dilemma to work. It tries to show that omnipotence is logically impossible and at the same time must admit that omnipotence by inherent definition entails the ability to actualize logically impossible situations. [2] To believe a God to exists, One must believe logic is not always necessary. A: Logic is not always necessary. Do you need to use Logic to know that you love somebody? Etc etc [3] To not use logic, Is to be illogical. A: Not necessarily. [4] Pro is illogical and believes in magic. A: This doesn't follow. Con continues and says: 'God can create an unliftable rock and still lift it, Because he's magic? Then he's failed at creating an unliftable rock. ' Again, God can actualize logically impossible situations, Like creating an unliftable rock. Let me show my counterargument to this Paradox again. I said, This paradox tries to show that an omnipotent God cannot exist because it is logically impossible. However, This paradox necessitates an omnipotent being for this dilemma to work, An omnipotent being can by definition do logically impossible things. Thus, The Paradox has to agree that this omnipotent being (God) can do impossible Things. Omnipotence entails that God can actualize logically impossible situations like creating a stone he cannot lift. Therefore, This Paradox basically debunks itself. Con doesn't seem to grasp this. An omnipotent being can defy Logic and therefore Logic is irrelevant. Logic is irrelevant to a God With omnipotence in the first place. In other Words, to say that God can create an unliftable rock, Although illogical and self-contradictory, Remains within his power to do so. ------------- Con has agreed that the universe had a beginning, He also agrees that something cannot come out of nothing. I showed why the cause of the universe is a maximally great being with great Properties (God). Only omnipotence was questioned by my opponent on this matter. As I have shown, The stone Paradox necessitates omnipotence for it's dilemma to work, Therefore it assumes that God ought to be able to actualize logically impossible situations. It's self-debunking.