God probably exists

On balance, I currently think God probably doesn’t exist, but I’m open to changing my mind on this question. Hence, I thought I’d try and take the position of Pro.

Definitions:

"God" is defined as "the intelligent, powerful, and benevolent creator of the universe."

"Exists" means "have objective reality or being."

Rules:

1. Judges should treat this as a "select winner" debate. They should exclusively award points in the "more convincing arguments" category, and determine who "won" the debate, using tabula rasa judging. Voting moderators should remove all votes that award points in other categories.

2. For the purposes of this debate, epistemic skepticism/nihilism is false. Judges should automatically discount such arguments.

3. Con can't defend agnosticism or a 50% chance of God existing. Pro defends a greater than 50% chance of God existing and Con defends a less than 50% chance of God existing. This is not the same as saying "the burden of proof is equal" -- who has the burden of proof, if anyone, is up for debate. Broadly, Pro is defending theism and Con is defending atheism.

4. No new arguments in the final round. New rebuttal in the final round should exclusively be answers to the immediate previous round (i.e. in Round 3, Pro can't have new answers to Con's Round 1 arguments, and Con can't have new answers to Pro's Round 1 and Round 2 arguments). This is in line with standard debate convention.

5. No kritiks (e.g. "Pro's use of Western metaphysics is exclusionary, and hence Con should win the debate"), theory that calls for a role of the ballot that contradicts rule 1 (e.g. "you should vote for whoever best advances fairness in competitive debate"), or similar attempts to win the debate without debating the topic. If you're Con and don't know what these terms mean, you're probably fine (but maybe Google them if you want to be sure you have no plans to do this).