Logic suggest that some sort of creative, conscious God may exist . . .

IntroductionPro keeps on mentioning how Ryan Stringer's argument does not apply to all conceptions of God. The debate outline never specified that that my arguments had to fall in line with any type of God thinkable. That would clearly be unreasonable. Pro's only criteria was that we weren't specifically discussing the Christian God. If there is a necessary mind who grounds necessary laws, that could be true without Christianity being true. Since Pro alluded to the notion that he was going to be arguing God from logic, along with the fact that Pro never specified a definition; my definition suffices. Even if my opponent did not mean to present any form of TAG, there was still no specific definition of God outlined. Modal Argument For Atheism Pro claims:"However, though Stinger has an accurate validity framework, it ignores the condition that what can be interpreted as evidence of atheism can also be interpreted as evidence for theism, depending on theistic worldview." - Pro My opponent did not demonstrate how evidence for Atheism can be interpreted as evidence for Theism. Regardless, since there are more possible plugs for Set E, than f, due to the very nature of such propositions, then the odds of at least one of the Atheistic plugs going through is high. Also, the variables for p only deal with possibility, if any plug for p is even possible then Theism is necessary false via modal axiom S5.Pro also claims:"Only a small set of these possibilities are going to be true; the rest can be discounted as irrational, unworkable - ultimately UNSOUND! A theistic explanation can ultimately be one of the true ones!" - ProEven if only one of the plugs for p of the succeeds as being possible, then Theism, as defined, is false. Since Set E is much richer than set f (which only consists of the proposition "God is possible"), then odds are high that the Modal Argument For Atheism succeeds, over any similar counter-argument for Theism. Pro once more engages in the red herring fallacy by mentioning how the argument does not touch all conceptions of God. This is irrelevant, as my burden is not to successfully argue against any type of God, but simply: God. Pro did not define God in the first round, so the debate was open to my interpretation. Pro states:"For the pantheist, for example, God necessarily exist. No atheistic argument can discount that." - ProThe Modal Argument For Atheism discounts that. Pro cannot just assert God is exists in every possible world, he needs to argue for the possibility of God. As it stands, Pro has presented no evidence for God's existence at all. As I already showed, the fine-tuning argument does not require a God as an explanation. It is not even the best explanation. Fine-TuningYes, Davies admits that intelligent design and a multiverse is a possibility. That does not entail plausibility. Either way, the burden of proof is on Pro to show why fine-tuning leads to God, instead of fine-tuning leading to Paul Davies' theory or any other. Appealing to mere epistemic possibility here does not cut it as an argument for God. I never claimed Paul Davies' argument was an argument for Atheism, just that it shows that fine-tuning does not necessarily lead to God. The argument from Paul Davies was a rebuttal to Pro's argument from fine-tuning, it was not a positive argument for Atheism. Since this was his only positive argument for God, and he admits that it is just as plausible as Paul Davies' theory (as if they were equal), then he essentially concedes this debate. This was supposed to be a positive argument for God, not an argument from mere possibility! Paul Davies' account for fine-tuning is plausible, as information travelling back in time has been verified in quantum mechanics[1]. This depends on non-realism, which is confirmed by Bell's inequalities[2] and Leggett's inequalities, and the before-before experiment[3]. Conclusion -- DefinitionsPro did not define God in the first round, and had a criteria restricted only to the notion that we were not discussing the Christian God specifically. My definition of God is sufficient, as it does not necessarily speak on Christianity. Pro should have specified a definition in the first round. -- Modal Argument For AtheismPro did not really have any argument against the notion that Set E is inherently richer than f. This means that the Modal Argument For Atheism shows that Atheism is way more probable than Theism. It is almost 100% due to how rich Set E is. -- Fine-Tuning Pro concedes that there are many explanations for fine-tuning. However, Pro failed to argue why God is the best one, or the only one we should go with. Therefore, he did not even come close to establishing God's existence in any sense. The resolution has been negated.Sources [1] http://www.popsci.com...[2] http://phys.org...[3] http://www.quantumphil.org...