Instigator / Pro
1519
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic

THBT: The God of the Christian bible likely does not exist.

Status
Debating

Waiting for the instigator's third argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
1663
rating
64
debates
68.75%
won
Description
~ 679 / 5,000

INTERPRETED RESOLUTION: The God of the Christian bible does not exist.

DEFINITIONS:

God - The omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being described in the Christian Bible.
Likely - to have a high probability of occurring/being true.
Exist - have objective reality or being

RULES:

1. No Kritiks.
2. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
3. The Burden of Proof is shared.
4. Definitions are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
5. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
6. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
7. A breach in the rules should result in a conduct point deduction for the offender.

Round 1
Pro
Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most.  Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings.  The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe—at this very moment—that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this?  Is it good that they believe this?

- Sam Harris
==

PRELIMINARY I: Burden of proof & definitions 

Omnipotent is defined as 


The burden of proof is defined as follows

and operates in the following manner 


Atheism is defined as 

This definition is perhaps controversial, at least among the theist of whom are unconfident in their view. Often, Christians assert that atheism is not simple a lack of belief, it is alleged an active belief in no God. However, this is nit pick is founded on faulty premises. Consider the following atheists view on their disbelief. 

Dave Rubin:
  • The best definition for atheism is that it is not the denial of Gods, it is a lack of belief in Gods. .
Alex O'Connor 
  • All atheism is, is a lack of belief in a particular deity. 
The Atheist Guy 
  • Atheism is non-belief in the existence of a deity. It doesn't make assertions and it doesn't in anyway address knowledge. Non-belief is the default position until the burden of proof is met. 
Dusty Smith 
  • Atheism is a lack of belief in God
Armoured Sceptic 
  • The definition of atheist is a person who lacks belief, or does not believe in God period. 
Paul Provenza
  • I try to clarify this with people who're under the impression, usually with negative connotations, that atheists think they know there's no god, but really, I subscribe to the passing of that - which is that that's not the case - it's unreasonable for me to believe there is a God. 
Rationality Rules 
  • I personally prefer to define an atheist as "Someone who isn't convinced by the claims of theism"
If my opponent wishes to rebut the philosophical consensus of the term atheist, they will have to not only prove that all these atheists are some how incorrect, but that there is a better, more widely accepted term which is more relevant to this debate. 

  • Thus with all these terms defined, and their relevant dictionaries hyperlinked, it therefore follows that theists have the burden of proof. Consider the following analogy. 
    • Imagine if I were to assert that there were intangible, invisible, inaudible and insensible fairies dancing in my garden, who would bear the burden of proof? Would it be the non-believer, or the believer? Of course, the non-believer cannot prove that there are no fairies, but this in no way means that there is a 50 50 chance between there being fairies and there not being fairies, and it certainly does not mean that the believer is right. If I want to prove that there are fairies in my garden bed, I must prove that there are fairies in my garden bed. Saying "well you can't disapprove it so I'm right by default" is at best a cop out. 
      • With this in mind, consider my following 7 contentions which enforce my lack of belief in the Christian God. 
==

CONTENTION I: The anti-Kalam cosmological argument 

The Kalam cosmological argument, popularised by philosopher William Lane Craig asserts the following. 

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, 
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
This argument is fundamentally predicated by a framework upholding the A-Series of time. In this series events are ordered as future, present, and past. Futurity and pastness allow degrees, while the present does not. William Craig himself states:
 
“From start to finish, the Kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time” [1]
Conversely, from the perspective of the B-Series of time, events can be ordered according to different series of temporal positions in a two-term relation which are asymmetrical, irreflexive and transitive. 

The fundamental difference between the A and B series of time is that while events continuously change their position in the A series, their position in the B series does not. William Craig describes asserts that:

“On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived.” [1]
 
Thus, with the knowledge of competing series of time, I shall form the basis of my anti-Kalam cosmological argument. 
 
P1: If the universe is caused, the A-series of time is true 
 
P2: The A-Theory of time is untrue
 
C: The universe is uncaused
 
Conclusion derived from P1 and P2, valid via Modus Tollens.
 
==
 
PREMISE 1: If the universe is caused, the A-series of time is true 
 
This premise is valid via truism. The notion of a caused universe is reliant on the A-series being true. 
 
PREMISE 2: The A-Theory of time is untrue
 
2.I Preconditions for Causation 
 
  • The Oxford languages dictionary defines causation as that which relates to cause and effect. Where an event involves a cause and results in an effect, causation is associated. By virtue of truism, without a cause preceding an effect, causality must be absent. Moreover, the time between any cause and effect must be a finite and measurable number. Hence, it can be drawn that causality is inherently tied with the arrow of time, as the cause would have to precede the effect by a finite amount of time [2]. 
    • Moreover, the nature of causation requires that cause “X” and effect “Y” both be logically possible, either contingently or necessarily [3]. For example, it is impossible that there exists a cause of which results in the effect of a circular square. Hence, it is necessary that the coherence of causality lies in logical, physical and metaphysical laws/axioms. 
      • Therefore, the nature of causation is inherently incumbent on logical, physical and metaphysical laws/axioms. If something is incoherent or breaks the laws of logic (circular square), it cannot be caused. Thus, the idea of a caused universe is ultimately illogical, as prior to the origin of the universe, there were neither time’s arrow nor physical/logical laws. As the necessary conditions for causation to take place did not exist prior to the Big Bang, it is unjustified to speak of causation as the cause of said effect.
      • As the A-series of times affirms the proposition of a caused universe, and the conditions of a caused universe are wholly illogical, the A-series of time is inaccurate. 
2.II The B-series of time 
 
As alluded to in the introductory, the B-series of time is an alternative theory, of which the general scientific consensus affirms. In short, the theory asserts that the universe is tenseless and exists with one time and three spatial dimensions, where there is no objective passing of time.[4] This is a contrast to the A-series, which asserts that only the present moment is true. 
 
Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity supports the B-Theory of time and refutes the A-theory, on the following grounds; 
 
  1. General Relativity depicts a universe where time is an axis in a 4-dimensional, block universe. 
  2. Special relativity holds true that the laws of physics are the same, regardless of the frame of reference. This means that people can disagree on the present moment but are all equally correct. 
2.II.I
 
  • Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity depicts a universe where time itself is an axis in a 4 dimensional, spatial plane. The theory provides an infused description of gravity and space-time and shows that space-time can be curved and distorted by objects with a large mass. Gravity, caused by large objects warping the fabric of spacetime, affects not only the movement of an object through space, but also the object's passage through time.
    • Consider the words of Marina Cortês, a cosmologist from the Royal Observatory of Edinburgh.
"Imagine a regular chunk of cement. It has three dimensions but we live in four dimensions: the three spatial dimensions plus one time dimension. A block universe is a four-dimensional block, but instead of (being made of cement, it is made of) spacetime. And all of the space and time of the Universe are there in that block." [5]
 
Thus, it is harmonious with Einstein's Theory of Relativity that the future and past are already encoded into the “block universe”. From the block time perspective, the past, present and future are equally real. 
 
Such a universe renders the A-Series of time false.
 
2.II.II
 
Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity asserts that absolute simultaneity is impossible and that relative simultaneity is true. [6]
 
Consider the hypothetical event “X” and subjects “Y” and “Z”. It is impossible to assert that the two observers witness event “X” at the exact same time, if the two subjects are separated in space. Consider Einstein's famous lightning bolt example.
 
Einstein's version of the experiment presumed that one observer was sitting midway inside a speeding train car and another was standing on a platform as the train moved past. As measured by the standing observer, the train is struck by two bolts of lightning simultaneously, but at different positions along the axis of train movement (back and front of the train car). In the inertial frame of the standing observer, there are three events which are spatially dislocated, but simultaneous: standing observer facing the moving observer (i.e., the centre of the train), lightning striking the front of the train car, and lightning striking the back of the car.
Since the events are placed along the axis of train movement, their time coordinates become projected to different time coordinates in the moving train's inertial frame. Events which occurred at space coordinates in the direction of train movement happen earlier than events at coordinates opposite to the direction of train movement. In the moving train's inertial frame, this means that lightning will strike the front of the train car before the two observers align (face each other). [7]
 
  • Essentially, special relativity demonstrates that observers separated in space have different perceptions of when “X” event occurs. This finding suggests that there is no such thing as an objective present, as beings can experience event “X” at different times. 
    • Hence, this refutes the A-Theory of time, as it demonstrates that there is no “real present” as a single event can be perceived differently, with no appropriate metric to determine who’s “perception” is right. 
2.II.II.I Retrocausality
 
  • As has been observed in the quantum world, “backwards causation” [8] can be achieved by linking time-symmetry and retrocausality. Retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, an effect can change the cause. Scientific research provides an abundance of facts which provides support for retrocausal quantum theories, in which the future influences the past. Huw Price, a major proponent of retrocausality in quantum theory laws out an argument which suggests that any quantum theory that assumes that 
 
  1. the quantum state is real, and 
  2. the quantum world is time-symmetric (that physical processes can run forwards and backwards while being described by the same physical laws) [9] 
  • must allow for retrocausal influences. Moreover, experiments such as the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser designed by Yoon-Ho Kim aim to prove the existence of backwards causation. The said experiment is a rather complicated construction. It is set up to measure correlated pairs of photons, which are in an entangled state, so that one of the two photons is detected 8 nanoseconds before its partner. The result indicates that the behaviour of the photons detected 8 nanoseconds before their partners is determined by how the partners will be detected. [10] Undeniably, this should act as proof of backwards causation, in that the effect has affected the cause. 
    • Moreover, quantum entanglement further affirms this point, and shows that when a particle is observed and its wave function collapses, the entangled particles interact with each other retrocausally. [9] 
    • Furthermore, revisitation of the famous Bell Theorem, which was once under great scrutiny finds that the quantum non-locality observed in nature in the form of statistical correlations violating Bell’s inequality can be understood as the signature of retrocausal effects. [11] 
      • These such findings are incongruent with the A-series of times, as the A-series is reliant on the axiom that the cause comes before the effect. As the studies I have provided prove that this axiom is false, it is conclusive that the block universe theory is not only harmonious with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity but also makes sense of theories which would be deemed utterly absurd under the A-Theory of time.
C 2.11 Conclusion

  • Premise one is valid via truism, which makes the real debate revolve around premise 2. With the excessive evidence that I have provided, the  A-Theory of time can almost certainly be rendered false, hence the claim that the universe was caused is almost certainly false. 
CONCLUSION: God does not exist

The conclusion is therefore upheld and valid via the following reasoning.  

  • P1: P --> Q
  • P2: ¬Q
  • C: ¬P
  • C from P1 and P2, Modus Tollens.
==
 
CONTENTION II: Anti-ontological argument 
 
Theologian and philosopher Anselm of Canterbury proposed the ontological argument in the 3rd chapter of his book, Proslogion. The argument can be presented in the following syllogism. 
 
  1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
  2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
  3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
  4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
  5. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
  6. God exists in the mind as an idea.
  7. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
  • Though convincing at first, this argument is riddled with flaws. Consider the following counter argument used to deny the existence of God. 
P1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. 

P2. The merit of an achievement is the product of 
  • Its intrinsic quality and 
  • The ability of its creator 
P3. The greater the handicap of the creator, the more impressive his achievements are. 

P4. The most formidable handicap possible for a creator would be there non-existence 

P5. Therefore, if we assume that the universe is the product of an existent creator, it is conceivable that a greater feat would be to create the universe while not existing. 

P6. An existing God would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived, as an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist
 
C1. God doesn't exist. 
 
==
 
CONTENTION III: Application of Occam's Razor 
 
  • The Occam's Razor, also known as the law of parsimony states that “plurality should not be posited without necessity”. The principle deems a theory most likely if it has the least ontological commitments when compared with other theories. The principle can also be expressed as “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity” [12]. Thus, my application of Occam's Razor can be framed by theism versus metaphysical naturalism [13]. Whilst Metaphysical naturalism has only two ontological commitments (the physical universe and the laws that govern it), Theism has three commitments (the physical universe, the laws that govern it and a divine being). 
    • Hence, the theory of which God is not necessary is, according to the law of parsimony, more likely.
==
 
CONTENTION IV: The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
 
The argument from improbability is one of which creationists often offer to argue in favour of the existence of God and is often seen as completely convincing.  To some degree, theists are correct - the improbability argument is very strong and susceptibility unanswerable - although precisely in the opposite direction of which creationists intend. The argument from improbability, when paired with basic knowledge of biology is practically unanswerable. 
 
  • The term “Ultimate Boeing 747” is derived from Fred Hoyle’s amusing photograph of the Boeing 747 and the scrapyard. Hoye asserted that the probability of abiogenesis occurring on earth is no greater than the chance of a hurricane sweeping through a scrapyard and assembling a Boeing 747. In a nutshell, this epitomises creationists' favourite argument - an argument that can only be made by one with limited knowledge of natural selection. Consider the true implications of the improbability argument. 
 
P1. If God exists, then God has the following two properties 
  1. He created all the natural, complex phenomena in the universe
  2. He has no explanation for himself
P2. Anything that creates the natural, complex phenomena in the universe is at least as complex as such phenomena 
 
P3. Thus, if God exists, then God must have the following two properties 
  1. He is at least as complex as the natural, complex phenomena in the universe 
  2. He has no explanation for himself 
P4. It is very improbable that there exists something that 
  1. Is at least as complex as the natural, complex phenomena in the universe, 
  2. Has no explanation for its existence
C1. Therefore, it is very improbable that God exists.
 
In layman terms consider the following direct application. 
 
P1. If God exists, God is an ordered system and more complex than the universe he allegedly designed.
 
P2. From the Boeing 747 gambit complex systems either originate from design or chance occurrence.
 
P3. If God exists, God was not designed.
 
P4. From (2) and (3), God originated by chance or does not exist.
 
P5. From the Boeing 747 gambit the occurrence of complex systems by random chance is improbable.
 
C1. From (4) and (5), God probably does not exist.
 
By the theists' own logic, it is statistically improbable that something which wasn't created and is of this magnitude of complexity just came into being. Like how the creationist asserts that an eye cannot just pop into existence, I assert that a God cannot just appear by mere chance. 
 
==
 
CONTENTION V: Animal suffering
 
Wild animal suffering is the suffering experienced by nonhuman animals living outside of direct human control, due to harms such as diseases, injury, parasitism, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, weather conditions, natural disasters, killings by other animals as well as psychological stress. Let's evaluate the first three scenarios in more depth. 
 
  • Disease
    • Animals in the wild suffer from diseases which circulate in a similar manner to human colds and flus, such as epizootic's, which are analogous to human epidemics. Some well-studied examples include chronic wasting disease in elk and deer, white-nose syndrome in bats, devil facial tumour disease in Tasmanian devils and Newcastle disease in birds. Diseases, combined with parasitism, "may induce listlessness, shivering, ulcers, pneumonia, starvation, violent behaviour, or other gruesome symptoms over the course of days or weeks leading up to death."
  • Injury
    • Consider interspecific competitions; a natural interaction in population ecology whereby members of the same species fight to the death for limited resources. These interactions often lead to fractures, eye injuries, wing tears and self-amputations, all extremely painful injuries which further lead to behaviours which negatively affect the well-being of the injured animals. 
  • Parasitism 
    • Parasites can negatively affect the well-being of their hosts by redirecting their host's resources to themselves, destroying their host's tissue and increasing their host's susceptibility to predation. As a result, parasites may reduce the movement, reproduction and survival of their hosts. Parasites can alter the phenotype of their hosts; limb malformations in amphibians caused by ribeiroia ondatrae, is one example. Some parasites have the capacity to manipulate the cognitive function of their hosts, such as worms which make crickets kill themselves by directing them to drown themselves in water, so that the parasite can reproduce in an aquatic environment, as well as caterpillars using dopamine containing secretions to manipulating ants to acts as bodyguards to protect the caterpillar from parasites.
  • It is apparent that one fact is clear. Animals are often born into worlds in which suffering from factors outside of their control is a part of life. Why is this the case? If an all loving God really existed, why did he allow animals to be born into this cycle of violence and torment. Why do animals get their tongues ripped off by parasites? Why do cows get born and bred with the sole purpose of eventual execution? Why did God create a system in which animals live fearful lives, with the possibility of an excruciating death? The number of vertebrates alone is thought to be somewhere around 10^11 and 10^14, digits which are well into the trillions. Each and every one of these animals will, under the unairing supervision of an all loving God, likely suffer from more fear, devastation and trauma than humans can even begin to imagine. 
    • Theists may recognise that this argument is similar to that of the “problem of evil”, however I personally regard this variant to be far superior. The following objections which are often used to reply to the “problem of evil”
  1. Humans suffer as a result of free will 
  2. Humans will be compensated in the after life 
  3. Suffering exists because from it, more good can immerge 
  • do not sufficiently reply to the problem of animal suffering. To number 1, free will does not reply to why wild bush fires set alight koalas, causing them undeniable agony. Nothing within the koala's ability allows it to escape such an event. To number 2, unless Christians believe in some sort of animal heaven, this point is void. To advocates of rebuttal 3, I challenge them to name a single benefit which arises from a burning koala. 
==

CONTENTION VI: Omnipotence Paradox

The classical "can God create a rock so heavy that they cannot lift" is an argument commonly used to exploit the omnipotence paradox. However, it is only a prelude for my version of the argument. Consider the following syllogisms, valid via Modes Pones. 

p1. God is definitionally omnipotent (refer to the dozen sources provided) 
p2. Omnipotence means that you can do anything
c1. God can do anything

p1. God can do anything
p2. "Something he doesn't want do" still constitutes "something". 
c1. God can do something that he doesn't want to

p1. God can do anything, even something which he doesn't want to
p2. The act of God controlling you to submit a response to this debate by simply tying "concession Bones is too great for me", constitutes "something"
c1. God can control you to submit a response to this debate by simply tying "concession Bones is too great for me", even if he doesn't want to

p1. If you do not submit a response by stating "concession Bones is too great for me", this is either because God did not control you to do so because he doesn't want to or because he cannot do such a thing
c1. If God didn't do said task because he didn't want to, God is not omnipotent, as he cannot do things that he does not want to do
c2. If God didn't do said task because he cannot, God is not omnipotent, as he cannot do a certain 

==

CONTENTION VII: Bible inaccuracies 
 
Imagine for a moment that you bumped into a traveller, who asserted that he had a book authored by the creator of the universe himself, and that he would like to enlighten you with this new found information. Any rational person would approach this claim with weary, because after all, for one to assert that they had a book which contains the words of the “universe creator” would be a pretty substantial claim. What would be a reasonable standard to hold the book at? How many errors would you allow, before you dismissed it? My answer is 0. If someone who claimed they were relaying the words of God to me made a single mistake, that mistake would be sufficient for me to close the dialogue. However, the definition of “0 errors” needs to be defined. Not only would I not accept a single error, but I would also not accept any far fetched “symbolisms” or “interpretations”.  After all, you won’t see anything other than direct facts in a biology book, no “symbolic word play” or anything which doesn’t relate to facts. 
 
Sadly, the bible does not uphold my expectations. The following are 40 issues/inaccuracies within the bible. 
 
A. Cosmology
 
The universe was not made in 6 days (Genesis 1:1-31; Exodus 20:8-11)
 
Stars do burn out, fail or go “missing” (Isaiah 40:26)
 
Stars could never fall to the earth (Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Revelation 6:13)
 
Stars don’t determine the outcome of battles or orbit earth (Judges 5:20)
 
Earth was not made before the sun and stars (Genesis 1:14-19)
 
The moon does not emit light (Genesis 1:14-19, Isaiah 13:10; 30:26; 60:19, Jeremiah 31:35, Ezekiel 32:7-8, Matthew 24:29)
 
The sun is not a mere light that can be paused or reversed (Joshua 10:13, 14, 2 Kings 20:11, Amos 8:9, Habakkuk 3:11)
 
The heavens do not have “foundations” or “pillars” (2 Samuel 22:8, Job 26:11)
 
B. Geology
 
Earth and its geological features are in motion (1 Chronicles 16:30; Psalm 65:6; 93:1; 96:10; 104:8, Proverbs 8:25)
 
Earth is not disc shaped (Isaiah 40:22, compare Isaiah 22:18)
 
The earth does not have “four corners” (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekiel 7:2, Revelation 7:1)
 
Earth is not “long” or flat “like clay under a seal” (Job 11:9; 38:5, 14)
 
There is no hypothetical vantage point for viewing the whole earth (Daniel 4:10, 11; Matthew 4:8)
 
The earth has no cornerstone, pillars, supports or foundations (1 Sam 2:8, 2 Sam 22:16, Job 9:6; 38:4-6, Psalm 75:3; 82:5, Isaiah 24:18; 48:13, Jeremiah 31:37,)
 
The sea has no permanently fixed “boundaries” (Job 38:8-11, Jeremiah 5:22)
 
There are no “gates of death” (Job 38:17)
 
There’s no scientific evidence to support a global flood (Genesis 6:9-8:19)
 
C. Meteorology
 
There was never any firmament or canopy above the earth (Genesis 1:6-8; 8:2)
 
The sky is not solid (Job 37:18)
 
God doesn’t draw up water (Job 36:27, 28)
 
God doesn’t direct the weather (Job 38:25-29, 35-37)
 
Snow and hail isn’t “stored” (Job 38:22, 23)
 
Rainbows did not begin in 2369 BCE (Genesis 9:13-17)
 
D. Biology
 
The first man wasn’t made 6,000 years ago out of dust (Genesis 1:27: 2:7; 3:19)
 
The first woman wasn’t made from one of man’s ribs (Genesis 2:18-22)
 
The origin of humans doesn’t predate rain and vegetation (Genesis 2:5-7)
 
There were no angel-human hybrid giants (Genesis 6:4)
 
God didn’t bring all animal life to one man for naming (Genesis 2:18-20)
 
Flying creatures did not precede land animals (Genesis 1:21-24)
 
Life evolved through evolution by natural selection (Genesis 1:20-25)
 
Carnivores did not originate as herbivores (Genesis 1:30)
 
Not all animals are terrified of humans (Genesis 9:2)
 
Snails don’t melt as they move along (Psalm 58:8)
 
There’s no such thing as a flying, fiery snake (Isaiah 30:6)
 
A human can’t survive 3 days in the digestive system of a fish (Jonah 1:17) [14]

Con
Resolution: THBT: The God of the Christian bible likely does not exist.
 
Thank you, Bones, for initiating this debate. I look forward to a robust competition.
 
I Rebuttal: Con R1: Onus probandi [burden of proof]
 
I.a Pro offers multiple sources describing atheists defining atheism as not a declaration that there are no gods, but simply that they do not believe there is/are god[s].
 
I.b Pro offers  Onus probandi,  translated by Pro as, “the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.”  In Description, Pro declares in Rule 3:  “The Burden of Proof is shared.”   Pro concludes R1 discussion on  Onus probandi  with a reversal:   “…it therefore follows that theists have the burden of proof”   as if atheists do not. May I remind of the existence of Rule 7:  “A breach in the rules should result in a conduct point deduction for the offender.”
 
I.c Pro fails to offer us the full translation of the Wiki source “Latinonus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.”  Pro’s source offers an inadequate translation, which is:  “…the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.”[1]   This is inadequate, because the Latin phrase is more detailed than “the party in a dispute.” Let us see a more accurate translation of the detail,  “…ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.”   The detail is:  “[The burden of the proof] lies upon him who affirms not he who denies.”  My BoP, as Con, is to deny the Resolution, and I will, by argument and rebuttal, do just that. 
 
I.d.1 The resolution is a negative, declarative statement, an affirmative by Pro that the Christian God does not exist.  Pro, therefore negates that it is he who requires a Burden of Proof; that the burden is entirely on Con. Such a declaration, and offered translation by Wiki, exemplifies the inaccuracy of Wikipedia as a source,[2]   it defines a weak Latin translation, and defies Rule 3, and which, by so doing, defies Rule 7.  Cavete lector.  [reader beware]
 
II Rebuttal: Pro R1: Kalam, A-theory, B-theory, what is time, and other imponderables. A fishing trip.
 
II.a Pro would like us go fishing, but asks that we bring along a model of the universe, a big, ticking clock, but take off the clock hands, Albert Einstein, a block of concrete made by a woman, Marina, and a paper on retrocausality. Our fishing pole, and bait, are optional. By the way, are we supposed to be, by the Resolution, discussing the existence of the Christian God? The fishing pole might have been remotely relavant to the discussion, but the other stuff?
 
II.b I will note in passing that Pro’s exhaustive 8,000+ word essay on our “fishing” supplies and companions mentions the generic subject, God, and the specific subject, the Christian God, exactly zero times. What, then is the relevance of these matters to the Resolution, either for or against?  Pro has successfully removed his necessity of “Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat,”   but what else is accomplished?  Caveate lector.  Rule 3, anyone? Maybe Albert and Marina can join in, and we’ll play doubles-plus by Rule 7. 
 
II.c But Pro, based on the above, claims, by conclusion, that God does not exist. I suppose if God is not once mentioned, one can attempt the claim. 
 
III Rebuttal: Pro R1: Kalam Cosmology, and its denial
 
III.a Pro begins with the syllogism of the Kalam Cosmology:
 
P1:  Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, 
P2: The universe began to exist
C:    Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
 
III.b Pro rebuts the above, but not for reasons I will disqualify it, and by which, I will also discredit the Resolution:
 
P1 is correct; that which begins to exist, i.e., was created, having no prior existence, was caused to exist. I agree.
 
P2, however, has a flaw: the assumption that the universe began to exist. There is nothing in Pro’s logic to suggest this is true; it is merely assumed because the proposition says so. Do we accept logic on such an assumption? Is it logical to assume that time exists because we can apply a [inaccurate, after all] measurement of it? What, exactly is being measured? Seconds, by tick-tock, but is it, after all, just counting by a method that has variable accuracy? After all, we average our results because one day [and that just on Earth] is not an exact 24 hours, is it? We are compelled, because our calendar is no more accurate than our clocks, to add an entire day every four years! Again, what are we “measuring” but an assumption?
We often point to Genesis 1: 1 
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית (bə·rê·šîṯ)In the beginning אֱלֹהִ֑ים  (’ĕ·lō·hîm) God  בָּרָ֣א (bā·rā)  created
הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם (haš·šā·ma·yim) the heavens  וְאֵ֥ת (wə·’êṯ)  and הָאָֽרֶץ׃ (hā·’ā·reṣ) the earth.  The principle word here is “heavens,” which Strong’s Hebrew translation renders as 
“1) heaven, heavens, sky 1a) visible heavens, sky 1a1) as abode of the stars 1a2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc 1b) Heaven (as the abode of God)”[3]  This does not describe the infinite expanse of the universe, indeed, just the “visible” [naked  eye]. Did God create the  entire  universe, or just what is immediately around Earth, such as our solar system, or, more likely our galaxy, because stars are included? 
 
C  is descriptive of “the heavens,” but not “likely” the entire universe, given the Hebrew context of “the heavens,” which had a cause and a beginning. This does not agree with the Kalam Cosmology, but it does not agree with Pro, either. It is an alternative; an acceptable denial of the “likelihood” of the Resolution.
 
IV Rebuttal: Pro’s R1: Anti-ontological argument
 
IV.a Pro offers the ontological, 6-proposition syllogism. The logic of syllogisms requires all propositions, regardless of number, must be true, or the logic fails, and I’ll agree with Pro on the faulty conclusion. However, I rebut Pro’s offer of an anti-ontological argument by his altered syllogism, which I’ll analyze:
 
P1: False: The creation of the world is not the “most marvelous” creation: that achievement is man, being “in the image of God,” which is the Pro-acknowledged greatest thing in existence, at least in man's perception. Therefore, Pro’s P1 fails, as must, by definition, the entire syllogism.
 
P2: True, and it follows as a just consequence of God’s greatest creation: man.
 
P3: Fails as being merely an assumption.  See rebuttals III/b [P.2] above, and VI, below.
 
P4: Fails, since God has no handicap, as defined by Pro’s beginning R1 argument; the omnipotence of God.
 
P5: Fails, because it is a classic if/then statement, and an assumption that the universe was created, which I rebutted by my Rebuttal III, above.
 
P6: Fails: A garble of words that is, in effect, a triple-negative.  In math, “…when you multiply three negative numbers in math, you end up with a negative number, and the same is true for speech: Three negative words equal a negative meaning.”[4]
 
C: Therefore, five of six failures yields a failed logic, and the Resolution is not true. 
 
V Rebuttal: Pro’s R1: Occam’s Razor
 
V.a Pro defines the sense of Occam’s Razor as  “plurality should not be posited without necessity,”  but the claim follows an 8,000-word plurality essay with no mention of the Resolution’s subject, and a 6x propositional “syllogism” that fails. Plurality? Pro concludes:  “Hence, the theory of which God is not necessary is, according to the law of parsimony, more likely.”  But the Resolution does not speak to the likelihood of necessity, but to the likelihood of non-existence. The razor is dull.
 
VI Rebuttal: Pro’s R1 Boeing 747
 
VI.a Pro offers the Ultimate Boeing 747 argument, that random chance of a junkyard-constructed 747 from its plethora of available materials as a representation of “an argument of improbability.”  This, then is argued to represent the improbability of God being the explanation for creation, specifically of the universe, and Earth.
 
VI.b However, let’s reprise my rebuttal III, above, dismantling both the Kalam Cosmology, and Pro’s denial of it, simply because Genesis [the Christian God – remember him?] does not imply the creation of the universe by God, but just of our local segment of it. Who created the other parts? While not at all subject of this Resolution, let’s propose other gods, non-biblical, if you will, created the rest. Let’s propose a continuous pattern of humans becoming Gods, begetting/creating subsequent generations of man, who become gods, and so on, from eternity to eternity. We are generationally human, are we not? We generationally progress in our learning, do we not? Who says there must be a beginning and an end of that cycle? By Occam’s Razor, without much plurality of argument, the pattern seems consistently achievable. We’re talking a specific theory, which will be explored in a later round.
 
VI.c Pro’s offered syllogisms, once again, contain illogical substance, such as a repetitive phrase, the Px-2 repetitions:  “He  [God]  has no explanation for himself.”  From whence comes that little gem? It is not biblical, for the Holy Bible, in the creation sequence of Genesis, defines the purpose [the explanation] of God’s ultimate creation [not the Earth, as earlier claimed by Pro, but man]:   And God said, Let us make man in our image, after out likeness, and let them have dominion… over all the earth…”[5]  By the way, relative to an earlier argument of plurality of gods, note the mention, “Let us,” and “our image.”
 
VI.d Or, consider this explanation, from Satan:  “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods  [plural],   knowing good and evil.”[6]
 
VI.d.1 What, then, is God’s “explanation for himself?” To make man is his image, that man may become like him. That’s his job, and his glory: our immortality and eternal life in his likeness.
 
VI.e Therefore, with a repeating pattern, God exists, likewise, as a generational being. The Resolution fails.
 
VII Rebuttal: Pro’s R1: Animal suffering
 
VII.a Jerking tears is, I suppose, one way to argue a point, but in this case, not very relevant. Let’s back up to a system-level view; our galactic system, that is. When God was creating [I propose he did not retire from that profession, and still creates via evolution, as taught by Charles Darwin in his first edition of On the Origin of Species,as a read of his last paragraph from that edition will demonstrate].
 
VII.a.1  From that systemic view, as creation proceeds, is there any biblical indication, whatsoever, that God is creating a perfect world wherein all creatures get along, including man, that there is no strife, no challenges to our existence, no evil to battle, and no loss, suffering, disappointment, or even sweat? Nope.
 
VII.a.2  The world is not perfect, and was not intended to be, as created, and neither are we. Was our perfection ever a guarantee as created? Nope. That we are challenged to become so certainly is a biblical decree [see Matthew 5: 48], “by the sweat of our brow” so to speak. But that is a matter of becoming; it is not a current state. Does that mean there will be suffering by all creatures? Yes. A necessity of life. So cry, then get up and get to work, and stop whining that life isn’t fair, and God is a big bad Daddy. Oh, boo-hoo. The Resolution will not carry by tears.
 
VIII Rebuttal: Pro’s R1: Omnipotence paradox
 
VIII.a One would think one could imagine a more probable complaint but that God is omnipotent, so why doesn’t he… eliminate all suffering, for example, extending the above. So, who bloody well ever said that God, being omnipotent, must always act at that extreme level of power, or, for some reason, he is not God? Isn’t that a poor expense of energy? Do we always act at our full level of power? Nope; generally, just enough to get by, sometimes not even that, and, occasionally, at our full effort. So, what Grand Fubah declared a limitation on God, that God cannot and must not expend just enough power to get the job done?  What a lame, meaningless, and self-limiting argument is that?
 
VIII.b Yet, Pro offers four “syllogisms” by Modes Pones. I will demonstrate why the pony, in each case, left the one-horse town Pro postulates.
 
1.    The first is okay, but becomes self limiting, because it ignores for everyone, and robs from God “free agency,” a term Pro used earlier in argument, but denies it. One biblical reference, since we discuss the Biblical God:  “…Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat…”[7]   and that allowance included the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eating anything has consequences, as we have learned. Free agency, my friends, is the greatest gift to man after life itself, and the Atonement; a subject not relevant to this debate.
 
2.    What, pray tell, is wrong with doing something you do not want to do, unless that something is limiting to any other person? By the way, even death is not limiting, since, biblically, we are promised eternal life, beyond death. So, even innocent death is not depriving, from an eternal perspective. Death is merely the last enemy [I Corinthians 15: 26].  
 
3.    I have no idea to what Pro refers by the repetitious “concession Bones…” However, this seems a construct much like #2, which merely addresses doing things we may not want to do. So what?
 
4.    Fails for the same reason as #2. More “concession Bones?”
 
IX Rebuttal: Pro R1: Bible inaccuracies
 
IX.a I must ask what Bible inaccuracies have to do with the Resolution when the points Pro draws upon: cosmology, geology, meteorology, and biology, are not, within their own constructs, arguments either in favor of, or opposed to the Resolution; which is, by Pro’s definition, restricted to the existence of God. These other matters may be distantly related, but proof of them, individually or collectively, does not figure to be convincing Resolution arguments for either opponent.
 
IX.b Does Pro suppose an argument I might render is based upon the assumption that the Bible is the infallible word of God? I use the Bible for reference in support of arguments, but none are dependent on the volume’s infallibility. I accept that the Bible is not 100% accurate. I never have believed it, and cannot be convinced otherwise. Refer to my argument X, below.
 
X Argument: Addressing and defeating the Argument of Biblical Defects [ABD]
 
X.a In an essay by Theodore Drange, “The Arguments from… Biblical Defects [2006]”[8]    Drange offers the following syllogism. We have already seem how syllogisms can fail, because one cannot just strings words together in P1, P2, Pn, C format, and expect the logic to automatically hold. The propositions must be absolutely true in order for logic to prevail. According to Drange:
 
“[a] If the God of evangelical Christianity were to exist, then the Bible would be God’s only written revelation.
 
“[b] Thus, if that deity were to exist, then he would probably see to it that the Bible is perfectly clear and authoritative, and lack the appearance of merely human authorship.
 
“[c] Some facts about the Bible are following:
1.     It contradicts itself or is unclear in many places.
2.     It contains factual errors, including unfulfilled prophecies.
3.     It contains ethical defects [such as God committing/ordering atrocities.
4.     It contains interpolations [later insertions to the text]
5.     Different copies of the same biblical manuscripts say conflicting things.
6.     The biblical canon involves disputes and is apparently arbitrary.
7.     There is no objective procedure for settling any of the various disputes…
 
“[d] Therefore [from [c]], the Bible is not perfectly clear and authoritative, and has the appearance of merely human authorship.
 
“[e] Hence [from [b] & [d]], probably the God of evangelical Christianity does not exist.”
 
X.b Is there evidence that the  Holy Bible is the only revelation from God? Does the Holy Bible, itself, state that the compilation of books that comprise the Holy Bible today is the infallible “word of God,” speaking for the entire volume? No, it does not. For example, John’s famous statement,  “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life…”[9]   was composed centuries before the  Holy Bible  was canonized. John spoke of his own writing, and not the rest of the books of the  Holy Bible.
 
X.b.1. The  Holy Bible  is not necessarily the only “word of God.” Do we really presume to command that God speaks only once? True, the resolution speaks on ly tp the Biblical Christian God, so mention of any other is irrelevant.  If the above [a], [b], [d] fail, what of [e]? Even if the rest happen to be true, and [c] is, one failure is sufficient to fail the syllogism. [c] & [d] will be discussed below, but I will demonstrate that both fail if [c] fails. Therefore, [e] fails.
 
X.b.2 The failure of [c] is as follows:
1.    [c] claims that the  Holy Bible contains contradictions. It does. But let us understand the history:
 
2.    The First Ecumenical Council met at Nicea in 325 CE, under the command of Constantine, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, to formalize and canonize a singular doctrine known as the Nicene Creed.  Later, several similar councils were tasked with selecting and canonizing a set of scriptures over the next few centuries, attempting to complete the canon. This was obviously the work of men who were both ignorant of accurate translation, and intentional in corruption.
 
3.    Ignorant, because at no time did the translators have access to original Old Testament [OT] and New Testament [NT] scrolls for source material. The latest OT text available were written in the 7th century B.C.E., the Silver Ketef Hinnon Scrolls,[10]   and these were far from a complete set of what consists of the OT today. The latest NT text available date from the 3rd  century C.E.[11]   
 
4.    Further difficulty: translation depends mostly on dictionary-to-dictionary comparison. The problem is two-fold: One, languages seldom have word-to-word direct, syntactic sensibility; there are compromises made. Two, language is derived from culture, and without understanding the culture, its language will be misunderstood. Dictionaries are notoriously poor in teaching culture. The result: inaccurate translation. This is true even with the best intentions. Add to that the probable assignment of translation to different people translating different scrolls.
 
5.    One of the difficulties of the Ecumenical Councils was the bickering over correct understanding of texts. We have generations of time between the Councils and the texts they had as sources. Effectively, the most convincing of voices prevailed in translation.
 
6.    Finally, a third difficulty: intentional corruption of doctrine based on the bickering over and above translation errors. Thus, contradictions exist, even if not contradiction in comparison of one “book,” such as Isaiah, to another “book”, such as Matthew, even on the same subject, such as “who is the Messiah?”  
 
7.    How did God allow this to happen? First, by free agency. Beyond that, no one made reference to God as a scripture writer. He did not write a thing [well, Moses records that the finger of God wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets, but, other than that?], and they were, in any event, destroyed. Men & women wrote the sscritures. Inspired men & women, but the Council did not have one fragment of their original writing. Were all who wrote manuscripts between Isaiah and Benedictus Titus [a fictional translator for purposes of argument] equally inspired? Probably not. Why did God allow this confusion? Again: free agency. Adam was told, “...Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”[12]    Free agency, even if it violated God’s law.
 
8.    Therefore, [c] and [d] both fail, as does the following conclusion, [e].
 
X.b.3 Does the failure of ABD mean that the Holy Bible is not dependable as God’s word to man? It may seem to be the case, however, the points, above, of X.a [c] all boil down to one word; confusion. Let us consult a book and chapter that discuss how to resolve the problem of confusion. 
 
X.c James 1:5. I will reference verses 2 – 6, and will quote verse 5 here, as the germane point of the argument. I will add the full reference of James 5: 2-6 as a post-script. Verse 5:  “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.”[13]     That is how to overcome confusion, but Drange could not be bothered. That is self-imposed limitation.
 
XI  Argument: Addressing and defeating the Problem of Evil [POE]
 
XI.a There is a syllogism that accompanies the POE:
 
            P1: If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God exists, then evil does not exist.
            P2. There is evil in the world.
            C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God does not exist.
 
XI.b P1 is constructed of two phrases: an if/then statement. Let’s call them P1.a and P1.b.
 
XI.b.1 P1.a assumes that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, and, therefore, always acts with omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience. See argument X, above. Do humans always act with maximum extremes? No, so why assume we can limit God to only extreme action? 
 
XI.b.2 Therefore, P1.a is not an absolute, even as a preliminary if/then statement. The syllogism fails at this point, alone.
 
XI.b.3 The other phrase, P1.b, is a fundamental syllogistic problem related to the first: It presents an IFF [if ands only if] logic:  assuming P1.a is always true [it isn’t, per XI.b.1], then the follow-up P1.b must also always be true, or the entirety of P1 fails.
 
XI.b.3.1 The assumption that only Good can exist if God exists is preposterous, as demonstrated by argument XI.b.1.  Further, let us explore the following:
“For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things… And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.”[14]   
 
XI.b.4 We clearly see opposition in the world. There is good and evil in the world, and God has always allowed it to be so with a minimum handful of exceptions, and even in those cases, the entire human race was not obliterated. Therefore, P1 [.a, and .b] fails in entirety.
 
XI.c Further, still, there is even Biblical proof that there is both good and evil in the world, and God allows it to be so.  Observe Genesis 2 of the Holy Bible. God has completed the Creation, and has put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden to care for the Garden and all its creations; to have dominion over the earth [Genesis 1: 28].
However,  “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.  And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”[15]  
 
XI.c.2 God plants a garden with good and evil in it. Period.
 
XI.d Because P1 fails entirely, and, even though P2 is correct, the POE argument fails. The failure of any one proposition causes the conclusion failure, therefore, the syllogism is not logical. Therefore, the Resolution fails.
 
I rest my case for P1, and defer R2 to Pro.
 
PS:  Holy Bible, James 1: 2-6
“My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
But let him ask in faith, doubting nothing, for the one doubting is like a wave of the sea, being blown and being tossed by the wind.”
 
 
 
 

Round 2
Pro
Thx faux for your prompt response.  

==

Preliminary observations:  

  • My opposition agrees that the bible is not completely accurate
    • “I accept that the Bible is not 100% accurate. I never have believed it, and cannot be convinced otherwise”
      • Despite this, they build their entire understanding of Genesis 1: 1 by nit picking a single word. 
        • III.b “The principle word here is “heavens,” which Strong’s Hebrew translation renders as...”
        • Despite later admitting that 
          • X.b.2.6 “Finally, a third difficulty: intentional corruption of doctrine based on the bickering over and above translation errors
      • It is impossible for my opponent to simultaneously uphold the beliefs that a) the bible is inaccurate and b) the term “heavens” is not to be disputed. 
  • My opponent provides no rebuttal to my entire first contention.

  • My opponent makes no case for the existence of God and only provides rebuttals to arguments, one of which I did not even make. 
    • X Argument: Addressing and defeating the Argument of Biblical Defects
    • XI  Argument: Addressing and defeating the Problem of Evil 
      • Note that there is a drastic difference between refuting critiques of your position and making a case for your position. Referring to the garden fairy analogy I presented, note that merely defending your claim against garden fairy sceptics is not sufficient, you must make a case for the garden fairies. 
        • Thus far, my opponent is therefore defending nothing
==

Glaring issue 

As alluded to in my opening observation, my opponent completely fails to make a case for God. They have instead opted to assume the existence of God, and using this assumption, make a case for God. Though I could arguably refer to the mistake my opponent makes in the relevant affirmation/rebuttal, it is far too blinding to ignore. Consider the following statements made by my opponent 

True, and it follows as a just consequence of God’s greatest creation: man.

Fails, since God has no handicap

When God was creating

God is creating a perfect world

How did God allow this to happen? First, by free agency.

God wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets

God has completed the Creation

God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient

God has always allowed it to be 

God does this, God does that, God allows this, God allows that where is the evidence that any of this occurred? Where is the evidence that God is not handicapped? Where is the evidence that God was ever creating? Where is the evidence that God was ever writing? These are all blind assertions that you are making. Thus far, you have not created a case for the existence of God, and yet you speak so fondly of his alleged achievements. 

I must urge voters to realise the difference between proving God is not illogical, and proving that he is objectively real. As of now, my opposition has only (poorly and insufficiently) shown that there are no objections to the concept of the Christian God, however they have not proved that it exists. This fallacious thinking is epitomised in the following statement 

  •  Or, consider this explanation, from Satan:  “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods  [plural],  knowing good and evil.”
    • One must wonder how it is even possible to document what Satan himself said. When testifying at court, if one is to describe an event occuring, they will be asked who witnessed it, does the witness have any agenda’s and is the witness reliable. Moreover, all these factors need to be cleared to a standard of which renders the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. Not only have you ignored the questions which determine the likelihood of this occurring all together, but you then have the audacity to write of this occurrence (Satan’s speech) as a fact and then proceed to use this “fact” to reinforce your case. 
      • or more lethally yet subtly 
        • "So, who bloody well ever said that God, being omnipotent, must always act at that extreme level of power, or, for some reason, he is not God?"
          • In order to make the statement that "even though God is omnipotent that doesn't mean he has to fix everything" you must first make the colossal assumption that God is omnipotent. Why is God omnipotent? 
    • To once again recycle my garden fairy example, what my opponent has done is akin to saying “well there are no logical issues with my assertion of garden fairies so therefore they must exist”.
      • Though the idea of fairies dancing in my garden does not contradict any logical laws, this is not synonymous having successfully proved that they exist.
      • My assertion that there is an IKEA microwave floating in space does not contradict any known facts of humanity, but that in no way means that I have satisfied my burden in proving there is a stranded microwave in space. 
    • In your response, I request that you make a syllogistic argument for the Christian God's existence.

==

Affirmation of the anti-Kalam argument:

It is a great disappointment that my opposition has opted not to respond to this argument. However, this is of no issue to me. I am certain that voters can see the relevance of the case that I have made, and will vote appropriately. For memories sake, the following was the syllogism I provided. 

P1: If the universe is caused, the A-series of time is true 
 
P2: The A-Theory of time is untrue
 
C: The universe is uncaused

IF the universe was not caused THEN there wasn’t a causer. 

==

Affirmation of the anti-ontological argument:

  • Interestingly, my opponent dedicates a separate section to purely rebut the Kalam cosmological argument
    • (the Kalam, not anti-Kalam, for reasons obscure to myself. Why not just rebut my argument?) 
  • Before I dive into my oppositions critique, the following is the syllogism being investigated 
    • P1:  Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, 
    • P2: The universe began to exist
    • C: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
  • My opposition states 
    • “P1 is correct; that which begins to exist, i.e., was created, having no prior existence, was caused to exist. I agree”
      • Perhaps if you had read my extensive case for why this type of causation is reliant on a faulty view of time, you would not hold this view. You are basing your knowledge of cause and effect on axioms which are discredited by Retrocausality and quantum physics.
  • My opposition states 
    • "P2, however, has a flaw: the assumption that the universe began to exist. There is nothing in Pro’s logic to suggest this is true; it is merely assumed because the proposition says so"
      • My opponent makes the bold claim that the universe did not begin to exist. However, the "infinity" of the universe is an century old analogy of which has been thoroughly debunked and shown to lead to absurd conclusions. If stars had been radiating for an infinite time, they would have heated up the universe to the point where it reached their own temperature. Even at night, the whole sky should be as bright as the Sun, as every line of sight would have ended either on a star or on a cloud of dust that had been heated up until it was as hot as the stars. The observation that the sky is dark at night is very important, as it implies that the universe cannot have existed for ever, in the state we see today. Something must have occurred in the past to make the starts "turn on" a finite time ago. 
  • My opponent then translates Genesis 1 from it's original Hebrew script, which though the swervy lines may render it as intimidating at first, it carries little substance. They come to the conclusion that 
    • "... descriptive of “the heavens,” but not “likely” the entire universe, given the Hebrew context of “the heavens,"
      • I have heard a theist assert that God did not create the universe. Not only does the following scholarly bible analysis sources state

        • BIBLE STUDY TOOLS: Genesis 1:1 THE CREATION OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.
          • "the heaven and the earth"
            • - the universe. This first verse is a general introduction to the inspired volume, declaring the great and important truth that all things had a beginning; that nothing throughout the wide extent of nature existed from eternity, originated by chance, or from the skill of any inferior agent; but that the whole universe was produced by the creative power of God
        • BIBLE-STUDIES.ORG: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
          • “Created”:
            • (Hebrew bara): Meaning to create, shape or form. This verb is used exclusively with God as its subject. It refers to the instantaneous and miraculous act of God by which He brought the universe into existence. Thus, the Genesis account of Creation refutes atheism, pantheism, polytheism, and evolution.\
        • BLUE-LETTER-BIBLE.ORG:
          • "Heavens And Earth"
            • The final phrase in verse one, heavens and the earth, speaks of everything that exists. The Hebrews had no word for universe. When this phrase is used in Scripture it denotes all things that exist. For example, we read in Isaiah.
              • Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb; I am the Lord, who makes all things, who stretches out the heavens all alone, who spreads abroad the earth by Myself Isaiah 44: 24
        • BIBLE-REF: 
          • "What does Genesis 1:1 mean?"
            • He created everything in the natural world from the heavens, the sky, and space, to our planet and everything on it.
        • BIBLE-HUB: 
          • "The heaven and the earth"
            • The normal phrase in the Bible for the universe (Deuteronomy 32:1Psalm 148:13; Isaiah 2). To the Hebrew this consisted of our one planet and the atmosphere surrounding it, in which he beheld the sun, moon, and stars. But it is one of the more than human qualities of the language of the Holy Scriptures that, while written by men whose knowledge was in accordance with their times, does not contradict the increased knowledge of later times. Contemporaneous with the creation of the earth was the calling into existence, not merely of our solar system, but of that sidereal universe of which we form so small a part; but naturally in the Bible our attention is confined to that which chiefly concerns ourselves.
        • EMERGING-SCHOLARS: 
          • "The message of Genesis 1"
            • God and God alone created all things
            • God is sovereign over his creation
            • God created with wisdom and order
            • God created man as the pinnacle of his creation
        • JEHOVAH'S-WITNESS:
          • "Meaning of Genesis 1:1"
            • This opening passage of the Bible states two important truths. First, the “heavens and the earth,” or the material universe, had a beginning. Second, they were created by God.
      • Therefore be concluded that 1) this is one of those many typographies of which the bible contains 2) the people writing the bible did not know about the wider universe and thus dedicated so that it was more relevant to them or 3) my opponent is straight up wrong. 
  • From the Hebrew text, my opponent concludes that 
==

Affirmation of CONTENTION III, the Anti-ontological argument 

  • To recall, the syllogism in question is as follows 
    • P1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. 
    • P2. The merit of an achievement is the product of 
      • Its intrinsic quality and
      • The ability of its creator 
    • P3. The greater the handicap of the creator, the more impressive his achievements are. 
    • P4. The most formidable handicap possible for a creator would be there non-existence 
    • P5. Therefore, if we assume that the universe is the product of an existent creator, it is conceivable that a greater feat would be to create the universe while not existing. 
    • P6. An existing God would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived, as an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist
    • C1. God doesn't exist. 
  • My opponent had the following objections 
    • "P1: False: The creation of the world is not the “most marvellous” creation: that achievement is man, being “in the image of God,” which is the Pro-acknowledged greatest thing in existence, at least in man's perception"
      • So if I were to conjure up a kid out of thin air, and then precede to literally create the entire universe, you would be more impressed out the prior? 
        • Moreover, even if creating mankind was the most marvellous thing achievable, God didn't do too good of a job did he, considering all the murders and rapists running around. 
        • FORSEEABLE REPLY: But God gave people free will, so they have the choice to the whatever they want. 
          • OBJECTION: But if God created man perfectly in the first place, then they would not have chosen to do wrong, even if they had free will.  If we backtrack from the modern day back to when man was alleged created, somewhere along the line, someone had to have committed the first "sin". Obviously, if you had "perfect parents", definitionally, they would not sin, and would able to perfectly teach their children not to sin, so on. Obviously, somewhere, something has to have gone wrong, something which if people were actually perfect, they would not do. 
    • "P3: Fails as being merely an assumption"
      • In what way is this an assumption? What is more impressive, me running a 100 meter sprint in my full form, or me running with one leg. Obviously, me completing the same feat but handicapped is more impressive. It follows that therefore, the more handicapped I am, the more impressive me running 100 metres is. The same applies for the creation of the universe. 
    • "P4: Fails, since God has no handicap"
      • Fallacy of presumption. In stating that God has no handicap, you are making the assumption that God exists. 
        • Moreover, you completely miss the point here. My purpose of this argument is to show that a fully functional God creating a universe is not as impressive as one which is so severally handicapped that it doesn't exist. God, being omnipotent, should be the most impressive thing that there is. 
    • "P5: Fails, because it is a classic if/then statement, and an assumption that the universe was created"
      • According to Genesis 1: 1, your universe was created. Moreover, this my whole syllogism can still be used if you are going to nit pick words. Change all references of "universe" to "mankind" and refer to this syllogism again. 
  • Hence my opponent fails to rebut the anti-ontological argument

==

Affirmation of Occam's Razor 

A garble of words referencing, not this argument, but ones which I have made prior. I will not waste words debunking jargon. Therefore, I am left to repeat myself 

Whilst Metaphysical naturalism has only two ontological commitments (the physical universe and the laws that govern it), Theism has three commitments (the physical universe, the laws that govern it and a divine being).

==

Affirmation of the Boeing 747

  • My opponent states
    • "He  [God]  has no explanation for himself.”  From whence comes that little gem It is not biblical, for the Holy Bible, in the creation sequence of Genesis?"
      • I am appalled at how unchristian my Christian opponent is. God, being the "perfect being", has no explanation for himself in that he does not of someone who created him. It is simple to understand. 
    • "By the way, relative to an earlier argument of plurality of gods, note the mention, “Let us,” and “our image.”
      • In case you didn't realise, your God is comprised of the Father, Son and Holy spirit. 
    • "Therefore, with a repeating pattern, God exists, likewise, as a generational being. The Resolution fails"
      • It seems my opponent proposes the view that God is created as product of natural selection. However, a God created through this process is not the God which you are arguing in favour for, which renders this entire point false. 
==

Affirmation of Animal suffering 

  • "When God was creating [I propose he did not retire from that profession, and still creates via evolution
    • Fallacy of presumption. In stating that God was creating, you are making the assumption that God exists. 
      • This statement epitomises your lack of understanding regarding evolution. Evolution doesn't require a mover, or someone to push along, it is a natural process, hence the name natural selection. 
    • "From that systemic view, as creation proceeds, is there any biblical indication, whatsoever, that God is creating a perfect world wherein all creatures get along"
      • According to you, God is both all loving and all powerful. Something which posses unlimited goodness is something which loves without limit. If you love something, especially if the love is unlimited, you would not allow it to suffer, especially if the suffering is a result of factors outside of their control. 
  • Consider the following syllogism 
    • p1. If you love something without limit you would not put it in a situation where it suffers outside of it's control and where it doesn't gain anything 
    • p2. There are beings which are put in situations where they are suffering outside of their control and not gaining anything
    • c1. God is not all loving. 
  • I would be lying if I said that I was happy with the quality of your rebuttals. 
  • Hence my opponent fails to rebut the animal suffering argument. 
==

Affirmation of the omnipotence paradox 

  • My opponent makes the startling claim that 
    • " who bloody well ever said that God, being omnipotent, must always act at that extreme level of power, or, for some reason, he is not God? Isn’t that a poor expense of energy?"
      • Fallacy of presumption. In stating "God, being omnipotent", you are making the assumption that God exists. 
        • My opponent fails to make the distinction between a being which is merely omnipotent, and a being which is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
          • The argument that you make will only be sound if God is only all powerful, however, God is allegedly both. Sure, a purely omnipotent being does not always need to act at extreme power levels (what does extreme even mean to a being with infinite power? How is extreme even possible?), but God is all loving
          • If you love something infinitely, you would be willing to do anything for it. Whilst the claim to being all powerful means that you can do anything, being all loving means that you love everything. Love, is a strong affection for another which means that all loving is infinite affection for another. If you are infinitely affectionate for your pet  rabbit, will you watch it burn alive in a situation where it can do nothing else? Sure, being all powerful gives you no binding obligations, but being all loving can only be proved through the state of that being exerting love. A burning rabbit is not loved, it is suffering. 
        • Consider the following quote by Epicurus 
          • “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
          • Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
          • Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
          • Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
        • Your objection appears to be aimed at the second point, that is, why does God need to save everyone,  isn’t that a poor use of energy? Well, if that’s the case, then don’t claim the title of being all loving because if you, an all powerful being “cannot be bothered” to save burning children, you’re clearly malevolent. 
      • Moreover, my opponent seems to completely have missed the gist of my argument. To aid, I will provide in a more digestible format. 
      • IF God can do anything THEN they can do something that they do not want to do. 
        • If God can't do something he doesn’t want to do, he isn’t all powerful, as he cannot do the thing which he does not want to do. 
      • IF God can do both both the things wants and doesn’t want to do THEN he must be doing everything
        • When confronted with an option to commit an action, the only option of which God can logically choose from is to do it or not do it. This decision is solely driven by what God wants. He will only do the things which he wants. However, as established above, as God is omnipotent, he can do everything, even something that he doesn’t want to do. Thus, if God does both the things he wants and the things he doesn’t want to do, he will be doing everything. 
      • THEREFORE, God should be sending a world wide earthquake to kill all of humanity right now. 
        • Why? If I ask God to send a world wide earthquake to kill everyone, he can either want to do it or not want to do it. However, as I have established, if God is truly omnipotent, he can do things even if he doesn’t want to do them as he is all powerful. Thus logically, there is a contradiction, as everything cannot occur at the same time.
  • With my argument more clearly explained, consider the objections of my opposition. 
    • p1. "The first is okay, but becomes self limiting, because it ignores for everyone, and robs from God “free agency,”"
      • That's the whole point of this argument. You can't just say "oh your argument disapproves of my God, therefore it must not be true
    • p2. "What, pray tell, is wrong with doing something you do not want to do, unless that something is limiting to any other person?"
      • Again, I must refer mods  to the following phrase, 
        • Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    • Thus, the omnipotence paradox has been reaffirmed and holds true.  
==

Bible inaccuracies 

  • This section is both a rebuttal to my oppositions X argument and an affirmation of my 7th contention. 
    • Myself and my opponent are in agreement that there are contradictions in the bible. 
      • However, they create a strawman and spend a considerable amount of characters discussing it. 
      • The following is the case I will make for bible inaccuracies. You may wish to address this. 
        • p1. If a book, for whatever reason, contains contradictions or flaws, the claims that it makes should not be trusted. 
        • p2. The Bible contains contradictions or flaws. 
        • c1. The Bible should not be trusted. 
==

Rebuttal: Problem of Evil

  • My opposition's whole argument can be boiled down to one statement. 
    • a assumes that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, and, therefore, always acts with omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience. See argument X, above. Do humans always act with maximum extremes? No, so why assume we can limit God to only extreme action? 
      • First, the lesser issue. Omnipotence is infinite power. If you divide infinite by any finite percent, the result is still infinite. If God decides to act with 1% of his power, this is still infinitely more than a humans maximum. 
        • It follows that even if God were to use less than a trillionth of a percent of his power, this number will still be infinte. 
          • Thus it is clear that this is not an issue of God stretching himself, or even tiring himself in any way, it becomes a debate about whether God is omnibenevolent. 
        • This brings me to the second point.  You state that "just because X is omnipotent, this doesn't mean he needs to always be omnipotent", and you then make the assumption that this logic is therefore sound for the rest of God's omni's. However, this is not the case.
          • It is true that being omnipotent does not mean you always have to act as you are omnipotent, because omnipotence in itself does not require one to be all powerful at all times.  
            • Omnibenevolence however does require you to love all the time. Why? On it's own, being all powerful does not compel you to any actions. You can be all powerful while be sitting on your throne without contradicting your claim. However, the claim to being all loving does compel you to act, as loving, as a oppose to power, requires action to fulfil. You cannot say that you are all loving, that is, that you are infinitely loving while allowing atrocities which I have mentioned occur, as love, unlike power, requires action to prove. 
              • Consider the following analogy to better understand my claim. A claim to omnipotence is like a claim to being a human calculator, while a claim to omnibenevolence is like a claim to being "the man who cures all diseases". The prior, like omnipotence, does not require one to act as part of the characteristic, in that you can be a human calculator without being obliged to do anything. However, the later, like omnibenevolence obligates one to an action. You cannot claim that you "cure all diseases" and then proceed to not do anything, for then the claim is not fulfilled. Moreover, it would not be satisfactory to say "who bloody well ever said that I, being "the man who cures all diseases", must cure all diseases", as there is a contradiction, as your fundamental claim requires action. 
              • This is similar to being omnibenevolence. You cannot claim you "infinitely love everyone" whilst letting them suffer.

==

Conclusion

It is to my great disappointment that my opponent has not provided a case for the existence of the Christian God. In a debate regarding the existence of God, I would have thought it compulsory to at least defend your proposition. With the evidence that I have provided, through the affirmation of my case and negation of my oppositions, I have thoroughly affirmed the proposition. 

I rest my case, and like my opponent, I too will exist with a quote. 

“Heaven is a place of endless praise and adoration, limitless abnegation and abjection of self; a celestial North Korea.” 

-Ma bro Hitchens. 

Con
Resolution: THBT: The God of the Christian bible likely does not exist.
 
I Rebuttal: Pro R2: Nit-pick of a single word
 
I.a Pro alleges that the Holy Bible cannot be both inaccurate, and yet nit-pick a word, namely, “heaven,” If anyone is nitpicking, it is Pro, who substitutes “universe,” which does not agree with any Bible English language translation referenced by Biblehub.com.[i] The point is absurd, deserving no further mention, since Pro’s designated source for this debate is loaded into the Resolution: the Bible. I’ll use the Bible’s word, thank you. 
 
II Rebuttal: Pro R2: Pro’s “entire first contention”
 
II.a  Pro’s first contention is “The anti-Kalam cosmological argument.” My rebuttal is R1, II, “Kalam, A-theory, B-theory, what is time, and other imponderables. A fishing trip,”   and R1, III, “Kalam Cosmology, and its denial.”  The obvious clue that it is rebuttal to Pro’s Contention I is the indicator to each main paragraph’s title: “Rebuttal,” followed by a descriptive. Both indicate reference to Kalam. The latter [III] refers to denial of Kalam [Pro’s “anti-”]. I will not apologize for Pro’s misunderstanding.   If I am Rebutting, my main paragraphs are titled “Rebuttal.” If I am presenting argument, they are titled “Argument.” If I am defending, they are titled “Defense.” And, if I am concluding… you get the picture, readers?
 
II.b My R1, II rebuts Pro’s entire essay containing the A-Theory, B-Theory, and the other imponderables, called such because, in an 8,000 word essay, we have no mention whatsoever of the Resolution’s subject:  “the God of the Christian Bible.” In order to be convinced of Pro’s BoP, do we really need a dissertation on time theories, Eistein’s relativity, Marina’s concrete, and Retrocausality? Is it any wonder I called it a fishing trip? It does not show me  “the God of the Christian Bible likely does not exist;”  it shows me Pro can do research on a science exploration on subjects of otherwise little correlation, particularly relative to the Resolution, which, therefore, fails on this point.  
 
III Rebuttal: Pro’s R2: My opponent makes no case for the existence of God and only provides rebuttals to arguments, one of which I did not even make.” 
 
III.a Let’s tackle the last of this Pro accusation first; that I rebutted an argument Pro did not make. Correct. Therefore, as I explained above, R2, II.a, this is why my R1 paragraphs X and XI are titled “Argument” and not “Rebuttal,” even though Pro did make an R1 argument re: biblical inaccuracy.  I offered historic perspective why the Bible is inaccurate, and also why I can, nevertheless, accept what some of it says, but not all, and even how to make that distinction. Thus, the ability to accept the Christian God’s existence. I trust readers know the difference between my arguments and rebuttals because this has always been my style of identification.
 
IV Rebuttal: Pro’s R2:  “my opponent is therefore defending nothing.”
 
IV.a This is, I was told, a 4-round debate. I do not fire all my guns at once; a claim I’ve made numerous times in past debates to anxious opponents. No, I have not defended anything, yet. There remains this round and two others. A non-sequitur Pro allegation.
 
V Rebuttal: Pro R2: “Glaring issue”
 
V.a I will begin this rebuttal with Pro’s parting challenge, to offer a syllogism:
 
P1:  The biblical Christian God was resolved by Pro to likely not exist.[ii]
 
P2:  The Bible declares that God is the creator of  “the heaven and the earth.”[iii]
 
C:  Therefore, by evidence presented by Pro’s Resolution, it refers to the Bible as a source by which I may uphold the Con BoP that  “the Christian God of the Bible likely…”  exists. The declaration of the biblical reference, by not opposing the reference by Resolution or argument, Pro acknowledges the value of the reference as admissible evidence in a court of law. Pro’s Resolution opposes God, while acknowledging both Christianity and the Bible. Pro opened the door by prosecution; Con has walked through it in defense of the volume in question.
 
V.b For follow-up, Pro alleges that I  “assume the existence of God.”  No, by the above syllogism, as Pro requested, I have assumed nothing. I use the volume defined by Resolution to support my BoP. Pro may assume anything wished. Assumptions will not win a debate. Now, Pro could choose to absolve the Resolution and remove reference to the Bible, but that would change the goalpost, wouldn’t it? Caveate lector.
 
V.c Pro stated, “One must wonder how it is even possible to document what Satan himself said”   in response to my quote in my R1, VI.d by Satan from Genesis 2, and we are introduced to a courtroom drama wherein the chain of evidence is in question, i.e., the Bible. What is chain of evidence and its admissibility?  “Chain of evidence is a series of events which, when viewed in sequence, account for the actions of a person during a particular period of time or the location of a piece of evidence during a specified time period. It is usually associated with criminal cases.”[iv] 
 
V.c.1 As stated above, R2, V.a, the evidence in question is the Bible. Pro introduced it in the Resolution, thus had custody up to the point of its introduction. I have not objected to the introduction. Therefore, the evidence is acceptable, and must be applied as such, Pro opened the door, Con walked through it. The evidence has been cited relative to what Satan said. Pro cannot now object to that evidence.
 
VI Rebuttal: Pro R2: “Garden fairies”
 
VI.a Pro made reference to “garden fairies,” claiming their introduction in R1. Pro’s R1 makes no mention of “garden fairies,”  and does not define to what is referred by the term in R2. I object to the introduction of evidence that is unchained.  Caveat lector.
 
VII Rebuttal: “Affirmation of the anti-Kalam argument”
 
VII.a A repeat by Pro of a syllogism that isn’t. How is a rebutted syllogism allowed new life without its correction? The syllogism of Pro’s anti-Kalam argument also makes an if/then statement, by “Premise 1” in P1:  “If  the universe is caused…” only  then  is the following true; that some A-time theory is true. My R1, III rebuttal declared P1, Kalam, or anti-Kalam, a failure, because the possibility exists that the universe was not caused, because it’s a theory, not fact. The theory that our solar system was geocentric was disproven, i.e., demonstrated by evidence as being untrue. Therefore, any syllogism beginning with the premise that even just our solar system, or the galaxy, is geocentric is a false premise, and the syllogism will not hold. Thus, this if/then regarding universal causation, the Kalam and anti-Kalam claim, is on very shaky ground. 
 
VII.b However, Pro alleges I rebut the Kalam, but not the anti-Kalam argument. What Pro misses is that in either case, if P1 is not correct, the entire Kalam and anti-Kalam syllogisms fail, due to each proposition’s individual failure. Is that not so? Why do I need to differentiate failed syllogisms? 
 
VII.c  Pro’s R2 statement re: my rebuttals of both syllogisms is grammatically incomplete, but I think we get it:   “the Kalam, not anti-Kalam, for reasons obscure to myself. Why not just rebut my argument?”   I did rebut the Kalam/anti-Kalam arguments, in R1, III, and in the current R2, VII.  Since both Pro syllogisms fail, the Resolution does not hold.
 
VIII Rebuttal: “Affirmation of the anti-ontological argument”
 
VIII.a My opponent’s argument/defense of the anti-ontological argument uses the Kalam argument syllogism which I debunked above by failure of P1, because another alternative, one that is biblical, a Resolution-allowed source, is a possible proposition; i.e., that biblical creation did not encompass the entire universe , and that based upon the translation of the Hebrew, הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם (haš·šā·ma·yim) heaven, consisting of less than the entire universe, as recorded in Genesis 1: 1. Moreover, Genesis records that God calls the firmament above the waters “Heaven,” [Genesis 1: 8], and, still further,  “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night,  and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.”  [Genesis 1: 14]  Tell me, please, what the Andromeda Galaxy, M31, the closest spiral galaxy to our Milky Way at 2.5 million light years away, has to do with Earth’s seasons, days and years. Nothing whatsoever. Does this not imply that M31 was not part of  “the lights in the firmament”  of creation? Finally, we read that two of the lights, in particular, do meet the requirement of our signs, seasons, days, and years: the Sun to rule the day, and the Moon to rule the night. [Genesis 1: 16]  The ties of these features, the  “signs, seasons, days, and years,”  are the determining factors describing a heaven that is not inclusive of the entire universe. This possibility rejects Pro’s anti-ontological syllogistic P1; therefore, the entire syllogism and Pro’s Resolution fail.
 
VIII.b Pro follows by saying,  “I have heard a theist assert that God did not create the universe.”  I will not claim it for certain, but it is my belief that Pro refers to Con. Yes, that is what I have been saying, and I assert the evidence of Genesis 1, by the various verses I’ve cited, that the assertion is true, mainly by the conclusion of that “day’s” creation, day four [Genesis 1: 19], that the lights created on that “day,” including the greater and lesser lights [Sun and Moon] were for our timing of seasons, etc. Since no other lights in the firmament do that, it is therefore a likely conclusion that the creation was limited in scope, i.e., not the entire universe. By the way, Con does not believe “days” were limited to 24-hour periods, either. Yeah, me; a theist.
 
VIII.c Pro continues his argument/defense of the anti-ontological by listing a variety of sources without sourcing them, negating our ability to access the Pro claims. I reject Pro’s unsourced claims out of hand, because none actually cite the Bible as saying “universe.” These “experts’” opinions say it. Sorry, not convincing in view of the Bible’s citation of  “signs, seasons, days, and years,” which all limit the scope of creation, regardless of “experts’” ignorance. Pro ends by saying,  “Therefore be concluded that 1) this is one of those many typographies of which the bible contains 2) the people writing the bible did not know about the wider universe and thus dedicated so that it was more relevant to them or 3) my opponent is straight up wrong.”  Or, 4] the people writing the Bible did know about the wider universe [some of it is visible, after all – the aforementioned M31 is visible, naked eye] and so on, or 5] Pro’s opponent is straight-up right.
 
VIII.d Pro declares my interpretation of Genesis 1: 1 by accusation that it is  “a false dilemma, or false dichotomy.” As mentioned in my R2, IV, above, I do not fire all guns at once in a single round. I did not conclude argument in R1, and have, above, included Genesis 1: 2 – 19, further detailing my rebuttal. I may not be finished, yet.   I have, in this specific rebuttal, defined a specific creation of Earth’s measure of times and seasons as the scope of the Christian God’s creation. Caveat lector.  
 
VIII.e Pro accuses that I “overlook alternatives”[v] as a logical fallacy. Does “logical fallacy” include Pro’s assertion that the Kamal cosmology syllogism’s P1 is true, without considering my suggested alternative?
 
VIII.f Pro further suggests my “fallacy of presumption”[vi]  by declaring God exists. Refer to my rebuttal of R2, V.
 
VIII.g Pro:  “…they essentially it up as a straw man and shoot it down.”   “Essentially,” failing in its effort to be a verb, renders this comment unintelligible. Try again. Nevertheless, this entire set of rebuttals, R2, VIII, sufficiently declare the Resolution’s failure.
 
IX Rebuttal: Pro’s R2: Occam’s razor
 
IX.a Pro accuses my R1, V rebuttal to be  “a garble of words.”  I do not apologize. I will merely remind a re-read of that entire rebuttal. It is a sensible rebuttal of acceptable syntax.
 
X Rebuttal: Pro’s R2: Boeing 747
 
X.a I will remind my opponent, once, of avoiding personal attack as an argument. [Accusing my non-Christian status as a Christian] Be appalled; the First Amendment gives one the right [unwritten, but obvious given the written freedom of speech]. Censorship, and personal attack, are not correct responses. Additionally, I will remind my opponent to never assume what my Christian doctrinal beliefs are; which stipulate the Father, the Son, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit as three, distinct personages, Gods all, not a single entity of three aliases.
 
X.b Pro alleges,  “It seems my opponent proposes the view that God is created as product of natural selection.”  No, that is not my proposal. One must read the words I use, without making assumptions, because I am quite clear:  refer to my R1, VI.b:    “While not at all subject of this Resolution, let’s propose  other gods,  non-biblical, if you will,   created others, such as our Christian God.  Let’s propose a continuous pattern of humans becoming Gods, begetting/creating subsequent generations of man, who become gods, and so on, from eternity to eternity. We are generationally human, are we not? We generationally progress in our learning, do we not?”  The sense of this is that gods are created by other gods, not that it is natural selection; but natural, generational procreation.  Pro alleges this occurs by random chance, and charges Con with the burden of that allegation. Con declares it is by direct design of purpose; ignoring Pro’s allegation altogether.
 
XI Rebuttal: Pro’s R2: Animal suffering
 
XI.a Without falling into the trap of quibble already discussed, let’s move to the crux of Pro’s defense of the argument of suffering. Pro alleges that God should have created a perfect creation. What’s the point, given the purpose of our creation in the first place? My rebuttal will defer to an argument to be made in my R3.
 
XII Rebuttal: Pro’s R2: Omnipotence paradox
 
XII.a Pro’s R2 charge, “In stating ‘God, being omnipotent,’ you are making the assumption that God exists,”   which is, by the nature of the charge, a “fallacy of presumption;” a favored Pro argument. No, not a presumption, nor an assumption, because Pro has already allowed for the inclusion of the Bible as evidence, as shown by the conclusion in my R2, V syllogism, specifically requested by Pro.
 
XII.b “Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?”[vii]  Thus is stated, one of many biblical instances, of God’s omnipotence.  
 
XII.b.1 However, Pro follows immediately by still another “fallacy of presumption” by declaring,  “My opponent fails to make the distinction between a being which is merely omnipotent, and a being which is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.”  Does Pro presume, by this charge, that I fail to distinguish the omnipotence and omnibenevolence of God, whom he also declares to not exist, and, therefore, cannot be imbued with these attributes? As Con, I accept the existence in God of both attributes, and more. By the variable positions Pro takes, I declare the matter defeated, and the Resolution fails.
 
XII.c Pro further confuses his position by admitting that,  “Sure, a purely omnipotent being does not always need to act at extreme power levels…” and questions what “extreme” means. It means omnipotent. As I rebutted [R1, VIII], Omnipotence does not imply always needing to act at omnipotent level. 
 
XII.d Pro still further confuses his argument by mention of “all loving” [omnibenevolence], and further confuses the attribute by declaring,  “If you love something infinitely, you would be willing to do anything for it.”  No; only what is necessary.  Pro completely misinterprets the power of God, who Pro claims does not exist, by the way, yet offers still more fallacy of presumption by way of benevolence,  without acknowledging “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”[viii]
 
XII.d.1 Yes, the promise of everlasting life is conditional on faith and belief in Jesus Christ. Is this supposed to be free of charge? No, man must repent of wrong doing to be accepted through the Atonement of Christ; that message is clear. But, for that, God the Father was willing to allow, by his free agency, the sacrifice of his Son, such that we, by our free agency, can choose, or not, to be obedient. What’s the paradox? There is none, and the Resolution is defeated.
 
XII.e Pro offers an Epicurus quote:
 
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.”    But that does not limit his omnipotence due to the rebuttal presented above, R2, XII.c. God is willing to allow evil, in order to allow our free agency to avoid evil by our own decisions. Epicurus does acknowledge free agency; nor does Pro.
 
“Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.”   The question assumes malevolence while ignoring free agency. As above, his decree of our free agency [see Genesis 2: 7] is granted by his own agency, allowing our combat against evil, for there must be opposition in all things [se my R1, XI.b.3.1]
 
“Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?”  Epicurus has no grounding in understanding Genesis, wherein God allows free agency, even to Satan to tempt man, and to man to resist Satan, or not. Evil originates, and is spread by Satan.
 
“Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”   He is God omnipotent, and all the other omni’s, and yet is willing to allow man his own choices on matters, including their acceptance of him, or not, purchasing them, on condition of man’s acceptance of the sacrificial gift of his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, and his Atonement. That is why he is God, Epicurus, and Pro, notwithstanding. Thus, the Resolution fails.
 
XII.d A concluding syllogism:
 
P1: The Holy Bible [not just any book] contains contradictions and the means to identify what is true and what is not true.
 
P2: The Holy Bible contains the means in James 1 and Hebrews 11 [among other scriptures] to determine what is true and not true.
 
C: Therefore, the Holy Bible is a valuable guide to knowing the Christian God and, therefore, his existence.
 
One may argue the validity of these means [P2], but if one will try, having an honest and sincere heart of desire, having real intent, and avoiding doubt, the truth of these means is possible to know by the power of the Holy Spirit. By such means is demonstrated the existence of the Christian God.
 
XIII General Rebuttal: Pro R2: The plurality flaw posited by Occam’s Razor
 
XIII.a This is a general rebuttal, to be applied during, I regrettably predict, over the balance of this debate.  Pro introduced us to Occam’s Razor in his R1. Glad I am for it, because I planned on reference to it, myself, particularly in view of Pro’s definition of the law of parsimony:  “Plurality should not be posited without necessity,”  given by 14th  century logician and philosopher, William of Ockham. His Latin of the phrase was, “pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.”[ix]  The sense of this, in English, is rendered well enough by Pro’s source. Would that Pro abide by it. Note that while Pro offered 7 arguments in R1, I offered equal rebuttals, and 2 arguments. In R2, Pro offered 2 rebuttals and 8 defenses of R1, and I will offer 13 rebuttals, 1 defense, and 1 argument. So, let us not quibble about pluralities.
 
XIII.a.1 Ockham, in association with the first phrase,  “Plurality should not be posited without necessity,”   offered a second,   “Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora”   or,    “It is in vain to accomplish by several means what can be done in a few.”[x] 
 
XIII.a.1  Recall that my R1, X.a proposed that “We have already seen how syllogisms can fail, because one cannot just strings words together in P1, P2, Pn, C format, and expect the logic to automatically hold.” I rebutted all Pro syllogisms of R1, rendering them illogical because all had flaws in their posits,  Pn.   Further discussion as Pro has variously pluralized in R2 cannot yield a logical response until the posited flaws are corrected. This, of course, will yield different conclusions, but that is the nature of correcting failed syllogisms. It is, as Ockham described, not necessary to pluralize further when a syllogism simply isn’t.  The posits must change. No amount of plurality will make it otherwise. For brevity, I will, hereafter, use the acronym,  F.S.  to mean “failed syllogism,” and this explanation of my R2, III.a.1, when the matter arises in my further rebuttals.
 
XIV Argument: There is a Christian Bible God: The Five Ways to know him
 
I.a I present the evidence of St. Thomas Aquinas, who proposed The Five Ways,[xi]     a philosophical paper describing the five proofs of God’s existence. They are:
 
I.a.1  Motion: Things cannot and do not put themselves in motion. One is immediately reminded of Newton’s Three Laws of Motion as descriptive of the first of the Five Ways.  “Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.”[xii]    We still accept this principle of motion today.
 
I.a.2  Causation: Nothing causes itself. There is no “Nothing from Nothing.”
“The biblical writers give us to understand that the universe had a temporal origin and thus imply creatio ex nihilo in the temporal sense that God brought the universe into being without a material cause at some point in the finite past.”[xiii]   So says Paul Copan and William Lane Craig from the reference [3]. However, “imply”  is a word laden with problems when compared against the following: 
 
I.a.2.A  There is simply no legitimate translation of biblical text, when compared to Genesis of the Ancient Hebrew Torah.[xiv]  “Gen 1 does not teach creatio ex nihilo. It does not narrate the creation of an inchoate earth, the waters of the abyss, the darkness which covered the abyss, or the wind that hovered over said waters; all of the above pre-exist the first creative fiat the narrator recounts: ‘Let there be light!’ (Gen 1:2-3).”[xv]
 
I.a.2.B The proper understanding of the Genesis discussion of the waters, darkness, etc., is that such was existing matter and energy that was disorganized, i.e., “without form and void…”[xvi]  It was, in a very real sense, without purpose. The creative effort was not a magic show, pulling a proverbial dove out of a hat, but the organization of matter and energy into a form, following natural laws, in order for those elements to have purpose, as anything created does. It follows that there are other places in the universe where matter and energy are currently “without form and void;” disorganized, and waiting for similar organizing, or creative effort. We see it, for example, in the gaseous clouds wherein new stars are in formation: creation before our eyes. Recall that as I noted in R1, VI.b, the creative effort we see described in Genesis is but one small part of the greater, universal expanse. Creation continues; a continuous pattern, as also described in R1, VI.b.
 
I.a.2.C  Let us not be confused: though this reference to the God of Genesis is an O.T. reference, the Christian Bible is wholly a document inclusive of both O.T. and N.T. and, therefore, is reflective of the Christian God.
 
I.a.3  Contingency: If nothing existed first, then nothing could have been created.
There exists a basic human curiosity extant from our earliest prehistory “memory” that humans wonder why that which is sensed by us is  “…something rather than nothing or than something else.”[xvii]     “It invokes a concern for some full, complete, ultimate, or best explanation of what exists by contingency, necessity, causation and explanation…”  in short, “…the nature and origin of the universe.”[xviii]  
 
I.a.3.A Remember from R1, III, my rebuttal to the Kalam Cosmology that the great expanse of the universe pre-existed the creation by God, as described in Genesis, of  “the heavens and the earth;”  that the creation was a more localized event, such as just encompassing our galaxy. And that, by virtue of a better understanding of Strong’s Hebrew translation of  “the heavens.”
 
I.a.4  Degrees of perfection: There are degrees of goodness, truth, nobility.
While perfection seems an ideal of impossible attainment, we are simply limiting our view to the attainment and not the steps followed to get there, such as not seeing the trees for the forest. “Scale down,” Aquinas is, in essence, saying.  If, today, we cannot be perfect in all things, such as attempting to achieve that taught by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount,  “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.”[xix]    
 
I.a.4.A Taken as a whole, perfection has been, heretofore, impossible to do in a mortal lifetime, but for Christ, himself. However, did Christ attach a timetable of expectation for us? Is he counting with a clock, hands removed, or not? No. However, can we not determine to take two minutes every morning and night to brush our teeth, and repeat daily without error or omission? Yes, we can do that. How about telling our loved ones we love them and do so daily? Yes, we can do that, too. Simply add to the list, daily, things we can do perfectly. There are degrees of perfection that expand to forever, as this Fourth Way clearly stipulates. How about tomorrow, we forgive our neighbor’s dog for leaving a stinky package on our front lawn? The dog is acting by its nature, having no concept of property ownership. Go talk to your neighbor, and stop yelling at the dog. Be friendly. A new item on the list.
 
I.a.5  Teleology: natural things act for an end or purpose. The classic questions: Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? These are natural questions we may each have of our primal purpose. The solution of these questions are the result of realizing that we, and nature with us, think and act for a purpose, and there is an ultimate purpose similar to the degrees of perfection, above, as well as each of the Five Ways link together to describe a whole: the biblical Christian God exists. He has progressed through these same principles, and is who he is by these purposes, completed in eons of time ago, forging a path designated for him by other, earlier gods; as he has laid out for us to follow, progress, achieve, and do likewise for generations of ours to come.
 
I conclude my R2. R3 to Pro
 


[iii]Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 1
[vii]Holy Bible, Lamentations 3: 37
[viii]Holy Bible, John 3: 16
[xvi]Holy Bible, Genesis I: 2
[xix]Holy Bible, Matthew 5: 48

Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet