Instigator / Pro
7
1638
rating
10
debates
100.0%
won
Topic

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

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

Bones
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
4
1692
rating
76
debates
69.74%
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
Pro
Resolution: THBT: The God of the Christian bible likely does not exist.
 
==
 
Foreword 
 
  • Notice how my opposition only allow me to have 2 rounds to rebut to the argument for God which he has finally made. Whilst he has 120 000 characters to rebut my case, I only have half that number.
  • The glaring issue has been resolved as my opponent has provided an argument for God's existence. 
  • The bible as a source 
    • My opponent attempts to point at a supposed contradiction in my case, highlighted by the bold beneath. 
      • Fauxlaw: 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 favoured Pro argument. No, not a presumption, nor an assumption, because Pro has already allowed for the inclusion of the Bible as evidence
        • Yes the bible is allowed, but is it good evidence? I hope you understand that you have to do more than just citing in order to prove the credibility of your claim. If I were to cite “Thomas” from my bookstore, this would count as “sourcing” but it is as good me citing nothing, as I have not proved the credibility of Thomas. Sure use the bible, but I, you have acknowledged, have already shown that the bible is a faulty source. 
==
 
Affirmations 
 
CONTENTION I: The anti-Kalam cosmological argument 
 
Fauxlaw: 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
 
  • Clearly this demonstrates my opponents lack of understanding in terms of scientific research and methodology. Scientists rarely every assert things as fact, and resort to categorising them as theories. However, the term "theory" is used to describe what many would class as simple facts. From the theory of general relativity to the theory of natural selection, these things are carefully thought out explanation of for the observation of the natural world. The term "theory" is not coined lightly, it is akin to near certainty. 
Fauxlaw: …If anyone is nit-picking, it is Pro, who substitutes “universe,” which does not agree with any Bible English language translation referenced by Biblehub.com

  • Unfortunately, my opponent ignores the cumbersome evidence which I provided last round. To recall; 

  • 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 32:1; Psalm 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.
I have clearly shown that, according to Genesis 1:1, the universe was created by God. I have not only shown that the conclusion my opponent comes to is factually incorrect, but also why and where they went wrong. 
 
To provide another premise in my syllogism, consider the following; 

  • p1. According to the bible, God caused the universe to come into existence. 
    • True because of the extensive evidence I have provided, none of which my opponent has rebutted.
  • p2.  If the universe is caused, the A-series of time is true 
    • Unrefuted by opposition. 
  • p3. The A-Theory of time is untrue
    • Unrefuted by opposition. 
  • c1. The universe is uncaused
  • c2. There is no cause. 
    • P1: P --> Q
    • P2: ¬Q
    • C: ¬P
    • C from P1 and P2, Modus Tollens.
==
 
CONTENTION II: Anti-ontological argument 
 
Though the wall of words provided by my opponent may seem intimidating, do not be fooled, for little is actually relevant. If need be, I invite voters to scroll up into my second round and particularly to the anti ontological section, where I provide a short, syllogistic defence of this argument. How my opponent has ended up in the Andromeda Galaxy is quite unknown to myself. 
 
Using the faulty bible ("I accept that the Bible is not 100% accurate" - Fauxlaw) they arrive at the conclusion that my p1 

  • Bones: p1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable
is false. How one can use the "lights in the firmament of the heaven" to prove that creating the world isn't impressive is beyond me. However, this is no issue to me, as my opponent does tell us what they believe is the most marvellous creation.
 
Fauxlaw: The creation of the world is not the “most marvellous” creation: that achievement is man
 
Despite the questionable factuality of this statement (you really think conjuring a kid out of thin air is more impressive than creating the whole universe?) it suits me and the syllogism fine. The above statement was made in round 2, and despite my request to "change all references of "universe" to "mankind" to accommodate for this small disagreement and refer to this new syllogism, my opponent unfortunately opted to ignore the argument as a whole and ramble on about the seasons. 
 
Consider the following revised syllogism, of which is the essence of the anti-ontological argument.
 
P1. The creation of the man is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. 
  • Fauxlaw: The creation of the world is not the “most marvellous” creation: that achievement is man
P2. It is more impressive to complete act X whilst you are handicapped than when you are completely able
  • Bones: 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 sprint 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. 
    • Observe how this was ignored by my opponent last round. 
P3. The most formidable handicap possible for a creator would be there non-existence 
  • Truism 
P4. If p1 then it is conceivable that the greatest feat would be to create the universe while not existing. 
 
P5. 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 does not exist.

==
 
CONTENTION III: Application of Occam's Razor
 
Fauxlaw: 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
 
  • A re-read of the rebuttal? Let’s see the entire rebuttal which you made last round.
    • Fauxlaw: 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.
      • Within the garble, there is one misconception to clarify. My opponent attempts to separate the terms necessary and likely. They nit-pick the sentence “the theory of which God is not necessary” and commentate that this debate is about non-existence, not necessity. Embarrassingly, they ignore the second half of my sentence, being “according to the law of parsimony, [God not existing] is more likely”.
 Fauxlaw: 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 defence, and 1 argument. So, let us not quibble about pluralities.

  • This embarrassing misrepresentation of Occam's razor is almost hilarious. By this logic, I might as well have just typed “no” as my round and won! After all you can’t get much shorter than 0 arguments and 0 rebuttals.
 It is to my disappointment, but certainly not to my surprise, that my actual argument utilising the Occam’s razor has been ignored twice. To recall.
 
  • Bones: 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 
 
Fauxlaw: 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.
  • Underneath the crocodile tears my opponent sheds regarding me supposedly breaching his first amendment right, my opponent exposes what Dawkins may call a “consciousness raiser”. Notice how my opponent is free to interpret the bible in any way that he wants and when questioned, flexes his amendment rights. Imagine if this were history. Imagine if we were debating about the holocaust, and I stated
    • I will remind my opponent to never assume what my holocaust beliefs are, which stipulate that the whole event did not even occur and that this is just an international sympathy-attracting hoax.
      • Whilst you are entitled to your own opinion, facts remain facts regardless of your emotion.
        • Though this point is not directly related to this debate, it is worth noting how coddled the religious are, which makes intelligent conversation all the more difficult.
Fauxlaw: 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.

  • You’re a Christian and you’re hypothesising about other Gods which made your God?
    • 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
    • And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me". Exodus 20:1-3
    • for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God Exodus 34:14
Fauxlaw: The sense of this is that gods are created by other gods, not that it is natural selection; but natural, generational procreation.

  • God creating God? This is a textbook example of an infinite regress. Who created the first God, if God is a being who is only created by Gods? 
Through the smokescreen of outrageous claim, my initial Boeing 747 gambit has been completely ignored. To recall,
 
P1. If God exists, then God has the following two properties
  • He created all the natural, complex phenomena in the universe
  • 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
  • He is at least as complex as the natural, complex phenomena in the universe
  • He has no explanation for himself
 
P4. It is very improbable that there exists something that
  • Is at least as complex as the natural, complex phenomena in the universe,
  • Has no explanation for its existence
C1. Therefore, it is very improbable that God exists.
 
All syllogistic rebuttals which my opposition made in the first round have been refuted, therefore, thus far, this syllogism stands.

==
 
CONTENTION VI: Omnipotence Paradox
 
Before I begin this section, I have switched around contention VI and V as much of what is said here, namely about omnibenevolence, is applicable in the next section.
 
Fauxlaw: 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.
 
  • Doing “what is necessary” is not all loving. If you raise a child, and you give them the bare minimum to survive, “what is necessary”, you are not all loving, you’re a dickhead. If all that is required to have the snazzy title of being omnibenevolent is giving someone “what is necessary”, I could throw my breadcrust at some homeless man, and as long as they survive off it, even if it is just, I can get the title of being “all loving”.
    • Even if this was the case, God is not doing “what is necessary” to keep justice around the globe. As my animal suffering contention asserts, there are billion of vertebrates alone which are suffering unimaginable pain at this moment, not because of “free will”, or a strive to “the greater good”, or as “punishment”, but because they are quite helplessly placed into that situation. More one this in the next contention. 
  • Furthermore, it appears that the distinction between omnipotent and omnibenevolent is still unclear to my opponent. Consider the following analogy which magnifies their differences. 
    • A claim to omnipotence is like a claim stating "I can cure anyone of blindness" while a claim to omnibenevolence is like stating "I cure all blindness".
      • The prior does not oblige one to any action. Asserting that you have ability to cure blindness is not a synonyms to saying you have to cure blindness. 
        • This is similar to omnipotence. Stating you have the power to do anything does not require you to do anything (I will question the validity of this claim later). 
      • The latter does oblige one to an action. Asserting that you actively cure all blindness requires you to cure all people with blindness. 
        • This is similar to omnibenevolence. Stating that you love everyone infinitely requires you to an action, that being to love everyone. 
    • To use another example, imagine you have just burnt your parents alive and have been caught by the police. In the interrogation room, when asked if you love your parents, it would you be right to say "yeah I love them and all that, but that doesn't mean I always have to love them, after all that would be poor expense of energy"
      • This example epitomise how love requires action to prove. You cannot "take a break" from loving and still claim that you love someone. As soon as you stop loving, by virtue of truism, you are no longer loving the being. Thus, it is impossible to both love a being whilst putting it into a situation in which it has no choice but to suffer. 
    • Fauxlaw: “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.
      • First half is ad hominem, and second half is poor. Free agency? I remember addressing that by bringing up the animal suffering contention. Recall from round 1. 
        • 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”
          • Humans suffer as a result of free will 
          • Humans will be compensated in the after life 
          • 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.
      • Fauxlaw: 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.
        • Fauxlaw, furiously repeating your desired conclusion will get you no where. I clearly demonstrated last round that there is no way for an omnipotent being be "stretched to the limits". Recall
          • Bones: 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 infinite. 
              • 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. 
To conclude this section, my opponent provides a self defeating syllogism. It's pretty rough. 

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.
 
PROBLEM 1, PREMISE 1.
  • "has the means to identify what is true and what is not true"
    • This is an unproved statement which I am left to simply assume is true. 
PROBLEM 2, PREMISE 2. 
  • As is established in the first half of P1, the bible contains contradictions. 
    • Using the contradictory book, we are supposed to find truth within it's pages. 
      • Consider the double standard of which the Bible is operation at. If this were a debate about history, and I bring up a source of which has severe contradictions, from wrong dates to wrong names, it would surely be illogical to then use this source to establish truth. 
PROBLEM 3, CONCLUSION. 
  • Consider this absolute gem. 
    • Fauxlaw: 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.
      • Fact and evidence operates whether one has a "heart of desire, real intent and avoiding doubt". In fact, the purpose of facts is to operate on a level where intentions and desires are not considered. 1+1 is 2 regardless of whether I have a sincere heart to peruse the truth. And even so, we all know that by "honest and sincere heart of desire", you are referring to religious people. Atheist scum bags aren't invited. 
        • "truth of these means is possible to know by the power of the Holy Spirit". Yes, the syllogism which is supposed to prove that God exists only works if you believe in the Holy Spirit. This is the pinacol of circular reasoning. 
To no ones surprise my opponent ignores the actual omnipotence paradox which I provided in a syllogistic form. Consider the following, derived from the syllogism formed in round 1. 

  • 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.
==

CONTENTION V: Animal suffering

Fauxlaw: Pro alleges that God should have created a perfect creation. What’s the point, given the purpose of our creation in the first place? 
  • This is not what I have alleged, this is what your belief should entitle.
    • p1. IF there is a being who loves everyone infinitely THEN everyone should be loved
    • p2. IF everyone is loved THEN they would not suffer for no reason
    • p3. People suffer for no reason. 
    • p4. These people are not loved. 
    • c1. There is no infinite lover. 
      • Or if you want to consider the syllogism which you ignored last round. 
        • 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. 
Not much to say on my part, as not much was rebutted. 

 
CONTENTION VII: Bible inaccuracies 

This point was completely dropped by my opponent. Therefore, I must repeat 

  • 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 claims of the Bible should not be trusted. 
To reiterate, I stated prior that 
  • Bones: Consider the double standard of which the Bible is operation at. If this were a debate about history, and I bring up a source of which has severe contradictions, from wrong dates to wrong names, it would surely be illogical to then use this source to establish truth. 
==

Rebuttal: Thomas Aquinas's 5 ways. 

My opposition has provided 5 ways which we can prove that the Christian God exists.

The first three are the same thing with different wording, and they can be considered as one argument. All involve an infinite regress - the answer to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum

  1. Motion. Nothing moves without a prior mover
  2. Causation. Nothing causes itself 
  3. Contingency. If nothing existed first, then nothing could have been created.
  • The first issue is that it is entirely unwarranted to assume that God is immune to the regress. In fact, the second of Aquinas's proofs, "nothing causes itself" should on its own, if valid, debunk the entire idea of God. For the question arises, what caused God? 
    • This is a clear example of the special pleading fallacy, where one creates an expectation or rule without justifying why that case deservers exemption. For my opponent to assert that everything in motion is caused to be in motion by something else, except for God, without adequately justifying why this is the case on its own can render the first 3 "ways" false.   
  • The second issue is that even if we accept the first 3 statements, this will only prove that an unmoved mover exists. It would not prove this unmoved mover still exists, is a being, is conscious, posses the 4 omni's, listen to prayers, forgive people of their sins, read the innermost thoughts of people or that he created an afterlife for all good people to congregate. 
    • In other words, even if we allow for the premises to be correct, this in no way renders Fauxlaw's interpretation of Christianity to be true, for an Islam, Druze and Zoroastrianism could all use this argument to justify there own God. 
    4. Perfection. As there are degrees to perfection it follows that our judgement is a comparison of our actions and a maximum. 

  • The first issue is that one does not need a "maximum" to judge an action, they can simply compare it to what is neutral. For example, I do not need to know how to perfectly raise my pet in order to know that smashing it's skull onto a brick wall is not productive for its well being. I can compare smashing my pets skull onto a brick wall(evil) with not smashing it's skull into a brick (neutral) and determine that the prior is good for my pet. 
  • The second issue is that even if I were to grant that a maximum is required to judge an action, it is possible to substitute any dimension of comparison for the term "perfect". For example, one could argue that there are degrees of evil, and therefore there must be an infinitely evil being, let's call him God. 
    5. Teleology. Complexity requires a designer. A watch does not makes itself. 

The argument usually uses an analogy of which goes along the lines of "a painting requires a painter to paint". The teleological argument uses the following syllogism, or a variation. 

p1. A watch is complex
p2. The watch has a designer
p3. The universe is complex
c1. The universe has a designer. 

  • The first issue is that this commits the false analogy fallacy. The syllogism is flawed as it concludes that because two things share one similarity, they must also share other qualities. To magnify the issue, consider the following
    • p1. A dog is an animal
    • p2. The animal has legs 
    • p3. A snake is an animal
    • c1. A snake has legs
  • The second issue is that this is a false cause fallacy. This is done when it is asserted that complexity can only be caused by a designer. Not only has this never been proven to be true, it has actually been proven to be completely incorrect. Natural selection has been completely and utterly proven to be an unconscious process which has given rise to countless complex organisms. In other words, we know as a fact that natural can, does and has produced remarkably complex organism without a complex or intelligent hand behind it. 
    • The truth of the matter is that the reason why humans recognise watches as designed actually has nothing to do with how complex a watch is, it is because we know the watch was designed.
      • Across the world, there are millions of examples of watches being created by a designer, and zero examples of a watches being made without designers
      • On the contrary, we have zero examples of life being created by a designer, and millions of examples of nature creating complex life
Thus, with the cumbersome evidence I have provided, Thomas Aquinas has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, even if Thomas were correct, the 5 ways are only ways to prove an uncaused causer, not the specific Christian God which my opponent is supposed to prove. As I have already stated, the "Christian God" is not just an uncaused causer, he is omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. He listens, he loves, he forgives and he punishes. Or so you are supposed to prove. 

“All thinking men are atheists.”
- Ernest Hemingway

Con
Resolution: THBT: The God of the Christian bible likely does not exist.
 
I Argument: Theosis: “Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High.”[1]
 
I.a There are several references, both O.T. and N.T. of the sense offered in Psalms as quoted above. Jesus specifically referenced the Psalms passage above in John 10: 34. Moreover, “Many might find… the concept of theosis unnerving. Especially when they read a quote from… St. Athanasius:  ‘God became man so that men might become gods.’”[2]   
 
I.a.1 Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, was an older, sympathetic contemporary of Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire, in the 4th  century C.E.[3]   It may be, indeed, unnerving to many modern Christians, and virtually all non-Christians that Christianity would embrace such a doctrine. 
 
I.b There is a similar theotic idea from a more modern source, Lorenzo Snow, in the United States of the 19th  century: “As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be.”[4]  From whence comes such a doctrine? Well, like it, or not, it is biblical, and can be confirmed by each individual. How? Read on.
 
I.c A still more modern source, 20th  century, C.S. Lewis:  
 
“The command ‘Be ye perfect’ is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He   [God]  is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him—for we can prevent Him, if we choose—He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creatures …with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to Him perfectly… The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said.”   (Mere Christianity,Macmillan, 1952, p. 174)[5]
 
I.d  I, “a theist,” and “a Christian,” declare, by the mouths of five distinguished theologians, the concept of our growth potential to become like God. It is not a concept, as C.S. Lewis’ eloquence said, “idealistic gas,” but actual human potential. David, Jesus Christ, St. Athanasius, Lorenzo Snow, and C.S. Lewis do not pass gas in this regard, but offer life eternal in a realm we can only weakly imagine now. Note that, according to C.S. Lewis, confirming an earlier argument, opposing Pro’s, that our  free agency  to allow God to make us such perfected creatures is entirely our choice. We can prevent him. Therefore, the Resolution fails, because:
 
P1: God will not fail to make deserving humans exactly like him.
 
P2: Man can individually fail, by his own free agency to resist being made like God.
 
C:   Therefore, God exists because God will make man become like him, perfected and holy, but only by our individual choice, and not by God’s original creational decree to be “made in his image,” but, strictly, for now, imperfect, immature [relative to God], corruptible, but redeemable.
 
II Argument: Faith: driving the vehicle of the Five Ways
 
II.a In my R1, faith was mentioned as a means to know God. It is the vehicle by which we progress through the Five Ways to know God. 
 
II.a.1  See James 1: 2-6. Faith is distinguished from belief because faith, to be applied correctly, drives one to action:  “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”[6]   Further, “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.”[7]
 
II.a.2 For faith to have substance, as evidence, even if unseen, it must create a sense in the human soul that,  “…faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.”[8]  
 
II.a.3 There is no wisdom in evil:  “But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.  This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.”[9]
 
II.a.4 Therefore, the process of acting on faith is as follows:
 
1.    In order to gain wisdom, faith must be worked.
 
2.    Having faith, hope for truth must be applied. Hope is not a mere wish, just as faith is not mere belief.
 
3.    By hope, let patience have her way; this wisdom sought comes by patience. Do not doubt. That yields to evil, and thus, faith works only toward that which, though unseen, is true. Faith will not function in things which are not true. 
4.    Prepare thoughts, hopes, desires, and ask God. By faith, the wisdom sought will be obtained. Thus hope, desire, patience and faith in that which is true will yield the knowledge and wisdom that is in God. 
 
5.    This must be tried, as described, failing nothing, to achieve the described process. It is not magic. It is not mumbo-jumbo. It is doing, not just wishing. As Yoda once advised Luke Skywalker [Star Wars] when the latter tried, and failed, to use the Force: “Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try.”[10]   Watch and listen to the entire referenced scene of the Star Wars movie; Episode V, The Empire Strikes Back.[11]    In every instance when Master Yoda mentions  “the Force,”  think  faith  and its rightful application.  “I can’t; I don’t believe it…”  one says, as Luke admits to Yoda.   “That is why you fail,”[12]   Yoda replies. Though a science fiction story; a fantasy, the concept of faith taught as the Force by Master Yoda might as well have been a biblical prophet’s instruction to his followers to find and know the truth of God, our Creator, and his expectations that we become as he is. 
 
II.a.6 When we discover that whether we are trying to lift a spaceship out of a bog, or create worlds and the people to inhabit them, or just to know whether or not the Sermon on the Mount, for example, is a dissertation of true principles, or perhaps we have just lost our car keys, and have exhausted our efforts to find them… a loving God is waiting for our faithful effort to know him, and to have his revealed truth in our hearts, even the truth of the location of our lost keys, for they are not lost to God. Ask him, in sincere desire. The same principles apply to each of these examples of knowledge sought, and we will be forever changed, and begin to understand how this all fits together in a complete package whose aim is to teach us how, in a timetable under our complete control, we can become like God, just as Luke was learning how to become like Yoda, who was, in his realm, becoming… George Lucas didn't take the story that far, but we can imagine. Truth is stranger, and infinitely more appealing than fiction. In the end, thank God, the Resolution fails. And, do not ever forget to be grateful for the revelations received from God, for they come in abundance:   “…prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.”[13]   We must prepare the room lest the blessing is wasted. That room is built, and added upon by faith.
 
III Rebuttal: removed
 
IV Rebuttal: Pro R3: “I am allowed two rounds to rebut”
 
IV.a Pro accuses that I have not offered any argument until R2, leaving Pro this round three, and round four, to rebut my arguments. Pro is totally ignoring my arguments of R1, to wit, X, and XI, dealing with two issues: dealing with Biblical defects, which Pro raised in R1, and with the problem of evil; a demonstration against the notion that if evil exists, God cannot. It is a fundamental flawed belief which I argue, and Pro has not, to date, addressed. In R2, XIV,  I added argument of 5 ways to know God. I have added argument in R3, I, Theosis, and II, using faith to drive the five ways [R2, XIV]. So let’s not get wrapped around the axle that I have not given arguments regarding God’s existence, let alone rebuttals to Pro’s arguments. These may not be arguments Pro expected, but I do not argue to Pro’s expectations.
 
IV.b Pro complains he has one less round of rebuttal than Con. That is the lot in life of the initiator. I didn’t write the rules and will not apologize for them. We have equal rounds of argument, which is the primary point of debate. Further, I remind Pro of a famous lyric by Steppenwolf, by which I remind many of my opponents who complain about my debate style: I do not  “fire all of my guns at once and explode into space.”[14]
 
V Rebuttal: Pro’s R3: The credibility of Thomas
 
V.a Pro would have us be convinced that the Bible cannot be proven factual, yet insists that scientific theory can be acknowledged as fact, as if the Bible has no such potential. I remind, again, of the theory of geocentrism as a “fact” demonstrated as not fact,  but by one discredited perception.
 
V.b What is theory, as defined by science?  “Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected. The longer the central elements of a theory hold—the more observations it predicts, the more tests it passes, the more facts it explains—the stronger the theory.”[15]   
 
V.c Let’s rephrase that as applied to faith, which I have already defined:  Faith is testable. New evidence is compatible with faith, because faith is defined as thought and action applied to only that which is already true, but currently unseen to us. If the new evidence, by faith, is not compatible with what is already known, then what is newly “seen” is rejected if it is not true. The longer faith is applied, holding together as a set truths, the more tests of faith it passes, the more truth is explained, the stronger the faith, and the more it will reveal.
 
V.d So, Pro alleges the Bible cannot be used as evidence because I have already acknowledged the Bible to have faults, yet Pro denies my allegation that geocentrism has faults as a theory. Let Pro demonstrate, as I have, that such fault can be overcome, and show us the ways to accomplish it, as I have [My R2, XIV]. Let Pro, demonstrate, for example, the possibility that, as a Bible story, the two-by-two of all species collected into Noah’s ark was not, as has been proposed, simply a DNA bank.[16],[17],[18]   What? We claim Noah did not have the technology? Perhaps not, but God did. I will cite:  “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”[19]  
 
VI Rebuttal: Pro R3: Bible study tools
 
 
VI.a My opponent spent 3,000 words in his R2 to demonstrate, from biblical sources, and biblical scholars, a point that Pro rejects out of hand; that the Bible has anything of worth to offer, and that it does not exhibit evidence of God’s existence. Further, this entire Pro presentation is repeated in R3; another 3,000 words to allegedly argue against Pro’s Resolution, just to rebut my argument of the Bible’s worth, regardless of its flaws, to demonstrate God’s existence. Therefore, since in 6,000 words, Pro has argued for the evidence of the Bible and it’s various scholars, I accept his argument. 
 
VII Rebuttal: Pro’s R3: Anti-ontology
 
VII.a We re-visit, once again. Been here R1, R2, and now R3. And, again, Pro begins his defense of the argument with his failed anti-ontological syllogism: 
 
P1:  The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable
 
To which I rebutted:  The creation of the world is not the “most marvelous” creation: that achievement is man.  Pro accuses my  “rambling on about the seasons,”  ignoring that the volume to which Pro devoted 6,000 words over two rounds demonstrating the Bible and its scholars, itself tells us,   Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.”[20]   Pro would have us worship the whole universe before either man or God, the latter being an entity Pro cannot decide whether to argue for or against. I argue that seasons are important because the Earth has seasons, and their markings are not the wide universe, but our local sun and moon. That  is the significance of the Genesis seasons, a concept that, to Pro, is “beyond” him. 
 
VII.b Since the anti-ontologic syllogism, and the argument, fails on P1, let’s move to P2, by which Pro claims that being handicapped, yet achieving, is greater than the whole person competing, and winning. Here’s the crux of Paul’s argument to the Romans [Romans 1: 25], saying that this amounts to exactly what Paul said, and Pro fails because Romans tells us, contrary to Pro’s argument, P2, that a handicapped man is greater than a man, and greater than God, whereas, Pro’s P2 is that a “worshipped and served creature  [is]  more than the Creator.”  Pro cannot build a 6,000 word argument with biblical scholars for God, then oppose it, himself, unless he be confused.  We need go no further into it, regardless of the number of Ps  [Pro gives us 5]. The syllogism fails completely with one proposition failure; I’ve just offered two, so the Resolution also fails.  
 
VIII Rebuttal: Pro’s R3” Occam’s razor, revisited
 
VIII.a Pro’s law of parsimony is treated by Pro as if it is something different than Occam’s razor, and that I ignore it. The law of parsimony is Occam’s razor, and stipulates, according to Pro,   “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”   
Is Pro missing the point that multiple references to biblical scholars, and multiple references to atheists, and an 8,000 godless word essay in R1, a fishing trip including 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, a 3,000-word essay in R2, and a duplicate 3,000 word essay in R3 is exactly what is described by the law of parsimony; an excess plurality? It’s like arguing with a sock puppet with too many toes.
 
IX Rebuttal: Pro’s R3: Boeing 747
 
IX.a Other than repeating the Pro Boeing argument ad infinitum,  another plurality, Pro finally offers a singular new rebuttal:  
“However, a God created through this process   [Pro means natural selection]  is not the God which you are arguing in favour for, which renders this entire point false.” But, I am not arguing for a God created by natural selection, but Pro has argued in R2, and R3, that it is the God I argue. No. I’ve argued that as God created us, thus he, himself, began, as a mortal man who has progressed beyond mortality into a god, a supreme being. Pro has completely misunderstood, either by refusal or misconception, my R2 argument, X.b, and is further explained by my argument, above,I.
 
X Rebuttal: Pro’s R3: Omnipotence Paradox
 
X.a Pro defended his omnipotence paradox argument by the following against my R2, XII rebuttal of it:  “Doing ‘what is necessary’ is not all loving.”   Pro, like many presenting an omnipotence paradox essentially says God is like the ultimate battery-powered heart. It can only perform full-force, it has no rheostat to vary the performance as needed. My argument adds the rheostat; a device that allows controlled variation to the current to an electronic device, a light, or a motor. Pro charges that God cannot act by less force than needed, and, furthermore, is not all-loving [omnibenevolent], if he uses less love. But by Pro’s argument, God would do everything for us, all of us, allowing us no growth potential of our own by having challenges to overcome. Which parent loves their child more; one who does everything for their child, or one who lets that child make mistakes in the process of learning? Lest anyone think I am drawing a distinction, I’ll answer the question: it’s the wrong question. The right question is, can God be either as needed by the child? Therefore, there is no paradox, and the Resolution fails.
 
X.b Pro rebuts free will as being the cause of suffering. My free will causes me no suffering what so ever as long as my free will is tempered by choosing to keep myself as free from evil as I am able. From the evil of others. Since I have used my free will to choose to be obedient to God, within my own sphere of influence, I do not suffer. Others who choose to overwhelm my free will with their own can cause me suffering, but as long as my suffering is not by my own actions, the actions of others will have no effect on my eventual, eternal outcome. Pro would tell me others may cause my death. I say: so what? My death, your death, everyone’s death is just a door to pass through. It is the last enemy, and that is all it is, and it, too, will be defeated by resurrection into life eternal.
 
X.c Pro takes a curious turn on the syllogism Pro asked for, and was provided in my R2, XII.d, taking issue with 
 
P1  The Holy Bible [not just any book] contains contradictions and the means to identify what is true and what is not true.
 
X.c.1 Pro’s argument is that he must assume P1 is true. I reply: one need not assume; the trial of faith was well enough described. One need only do it, or do not. It will prove itself if one does, with a sincere heart. You’ve read the process. Pro refuses to do it, and that is on anyone who refuses to do it. I merely testify that it does work.
 
X.d Pro takes issue with 
 
P2:  The Holy Bible contains the means in James 1 and Hebrews 11 [among other scriptures] to determine what is true and not true.
 
X.d.1  Pro’s issue is the contradictions in the Holy Bible, and, again, fails to use P1 to its advantage to determine what is true and what is false, alleging that it must all be true, or we have no means to know its truth. Again, a failure to use the trial of faith. P2 merely identifies two chapters in differing books telling us the same things: how to use the trial of faith. Pro chooses to ignore it, and calls it confusion. Pro is like the proverbial man who has fallen from a building and prays to be spared. When his belt catches on a hook, the man says, “Never mind, God, this hook saved me.”  So be it. It denies that God may use simple means, not a-hand-out-of-the-sky miracle to do his work. Pro does argue for the law of parsimony, does he not? I do not rebut it. Simplicity is an active force, yet Pro will deny it of God. That’s on Pro.
 
X.e Pro takes issue with the syllogism’s conclusion:
 
C:  Therefore, the Holy Bible is a valuable guide to knowing the Christian God and, therefore, his existence.
 
X.e.1 Pro claims that facts and truth speak for themselves; that sincerity of heart, etc., are not needed. Pro applies the example 1+1 = 2. That’s fine if one already knows the formula and result, but, what if they don’t? How would they know?
 
X.e.2 Let’s consider the most beautiful equation in mathematics, some say, called  Euler’s Identity:    e^1^𝝿+ 1 = 0
 
X.e.3  If we already know the value of each factor, the formula ought to be relatively easy, but if we don’t, it might as well be an unknown language… unless. Can we study? Can we seek to know the elements? Can we pray for guidance? Can we do the work necessary to solve the dilemma facing our ignorance?
 
X.e.4  Or, do we toss our hands and, like Pro, say it cannot be done, that it is merely circular reasoning, and will not result in knowledge of any truth? As I cited Master Yoda in R2, we do it, or we do not. There is no try, and there is not a circle with no resolution. It is, due to 𝝿, merely a detail of decimals.
 
X.f Pro concluded the section by revising an R1 argument,  “If God can do anything, then they can do something they do not want to do”   and we are back to the free will argument. Pro denies free will. That’s too bad.  The rebuttal is easy: yes, he could do something he does not want to do, but he simply is determined he will not do it. I have never smoked. I choose to not engage it. I could, but my will says, “No, I will not smoke.” Such is God’s will. God chooses to not do evil. So, he doesn’t. 
 
XI Rebuttal: Pro’s R3: Animal suffering
 
XI.a All living things experience suffering. That’s life. It is allowed by God’s free will. I allow my children, as they have grown from utter innocence to knowing the world and its dangers, and have controlled their environment during their innocence to allow their making of mistakes as they learn that the world pushes back, lessening the restrictions on my children as they learn to recognize for themselves things they should embrace, and things they should avoid, to keep them safe, happy, and productive to the point that they can determine on their own what will further allow their safety, happiness, and productivity. Sometimes, they still make mistakes. So do I. But they tend to be recoverable mistakes without causing too much grief. However, many life forms do not have the sentience to provide such things for themselves; they depend on their instinct and sense of survival.
 
XI.b It is not that God intends that they suffer, but, what is suffering, after all? Ultimately, it is death, but is that an end? No, it’s just a door. They, too, like man, will resurrect to glorious, everlasting life. 
 
XI.c If man is the cause of their suffering, the evil is on those people, and they will pay, ultimately if not now. Evil simply is not condoned by God, no matter who does it.
 
XI.d Pro’s syllogism re: animal suffering is, as usual, flawed:
 
P2: if everyone is loved, then they would not suffer for any reason.
 
And they don’t suffer for no reason. They suffer, at times, for their own actions. They suffer, at times, for the actions of others. Therefore, the proposition, stated as an absolute, is false; therefore, the syllogism fails.
 
P3: People suffer for no reason.
 
See the explanation, above, for P1, because the exact same conditions apply. Therefore, P3 fails, as does the syllogism.
 
P4: Therefore, they are not loved.
 
Wrong again. God loves all he has created, and he allows suffering, because that is the nature of life because God allows life to have challenges. Jim Morrison once said,  “No one here gets out alive.”[21]   What Jim does not tell us is related by numerous biblical references: We will overcome death by resurrection and eternal life. That’s enough; with one failed proposition, the syllogism fails. Therefore, this proposition, the syllogism, and the Resolution, are false.  
 
XII Rebuttal: Pro’s R3: Omnipotence paradox, v4?
 
XII.a A fourth repetition of this paradox? Pluralities, anyone? Fine. Rather than address each of four new syllogisms [?] yet again, let’s just review:
 
1.     God can do anything, but chooses by free agency to not do some things and to do others.
2.     I can do anything within my power, less than God’s power, but I choose to not do some things, even though I could.
 
Free agency is the killer of all four Pro paradox syllogisms. Period.
 
XIII Rebuttal: Pro’s R3: Bible inaccuracies, v4?
 
XIII.a A fourth repetition of inaccuracies? Pluralities, anyone? Where the hell is that [email protected]%#**&! razor when it’s needed? Sadly, as Pro concludes, his entire inaccuracies syllogism [again!] is flawed because he begins with a book that wasn’t written as alleged. God did not write one jot or tittle, except perhaps as relates to some mosaic tablets... The traveler and the encountered man may remain in the story, and be added to Pro’s menagerie of characters and fishing trips.
 
XIII.b Pro concludes his inaccuracies argument with the assumption that the Bible has but a single author, God, and that it is, therefore, illogical to expect contradictions. But there were a few dozen different authors, and to expect them all to be saying the same things is absurd.
 
XIX Rebuttal: Pro’s R3: Aquinas 5 ways
 
XIX.a Pro begins by the absurdity that motion, cause and contingency are saying the same thing. No, I disagree. 
 
XIX.a.1 Pro’s statement of motion is correct: nothing moves without a mover. 
 
XIX.a.2 That relates to cause only within the realm of the laws of motion, but there are additional features of causation having naught to do with motion, in particular that not all things in motion have their direct cause from one source, and in most cases, that is not God, anyway. 
 
XIX.a.3 Contingency, in the Aquinas realm, is not a simple matter of either motion or cause. It is, perhaps, out of order as Aquinas listed them, because there are two types of beings: beings that exist, but could have not existed [contingent beings], and beings that could not have failed to exist [necessary beings].[22]   Pro would have us believe that God is not necessary, and is not even contingent. I argue that God is a necessary being. I also argue that we, man, are also necessary beings, since we will, in our generation, also have opportunity to be gods, like God. But God did not begin, himself, as a god, but as a mortal human, grown and progressed to godhood, by contingency. 
 
XIX.a.3.A Contingency, is, therefore, a brief condition only, during mortality, by which the contingency is that we, following a path God has laid out, as he followed a similar path by a God over him, necessarily must follow that path as the contingency to become, eventually, like God, but only by our choice. Like God became after the manner of the God before him, and so on, back eternally before there was time. Therefore, the three beginning constructs of ways are separate, distinct steps.
 
XIX.b Perfection is not a comparison at all, as Pro alleges. Perfection is the standard, period, against which we are judged, ultimately, and it is not a sliding scale, or a grade on the curve. We all know what is meant by perfection, and it is expected to be achieved. Period.
 
XIX.c Teleology, by Pro, is being confused with Causation. Aquinas defined Teleology as:  natural things act for an end or purpose,  as my R2, XIV.1.a.5 said.  This has naught to do with cause. Cause happens, creating natural things, and Aquinas’ teleology then has those natural creations act for end purposes, not for random existence, nor for determinism, as if by force. They do so by free agency. Concluding, by a Pro failed syllogism that both dogs and snakes have legs is the nonsense of most other Pro syllogisms because teleology is not causation. Pro has offered a pair of false cause fallacies because Pro confuses #2 way with #5 way. That’s on Pro, and his Resolution fails.
 
XV Conclusion: Hemmingway
 
XV.a  Earnest Hemmingway also said,  “There is no friend as loyal as a book.”   I own many books, None of them care who reads them, or what is taken away from them. What kind of friend is that? Even my several copies of the Bible have that attitude. In fact, that attitude is such a negative, it is not a bookish attitude at all. But, Hemmingway impresses people who do not read.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


[1]Holy Bible, Psalms 82: 6
[6]Holy Bible, Hebrews 11: 1
[7]Holy Bible, James 1: 3 - 5
[8]Book of Mormon, Alma 32: 21
[9]Holy Bible, James 3: 14-15
[13]Holy Bible, Malachi 3: 10
[19]Holy Bible, Matthew 19: 26
[20]Holy Bible, Romans 1: 25

Round 4
Pro
Foreword

  • For the sanity of voters, in my final segment, I will revisit and recap the dialogue between myself and my opposition throughout this entire debate. This way, it will be clear what arguments were made, how they were refuted, and how they were affirmed. With debates the size of this one, it is easy to forget an argument amidst the ocean of refutations. 
    • Another reason I do this is because the sheer amount of argument which my opponent misrepresents and ignores is so substantial that it cannot be ignored.
  • A large portion of the arguments I make have been ignored by my opponent. 
    • If my opponent  chooses to, in the final round, present new/actual rebuttals, take note that I physically cannot reply to them. My opponent has had 90 000 characters to refute my case, and if they choose to rebut my argument in the round where I cannot respond, take note. 
  • My opponent ability to ignore my arguments is overwhelmingly powerful. 
==

I. The anti-Kalam

  • PRO opened what I coined as the anti-Kalam 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
  • I demonstrated that the A-series of time is absurd, and that the B-series is affirmed by the theory of general relativity, special relativity and quantum physics. I further showed that preconditions for causation were not satisfied before the existence of the universe, rendering the idea of a caused universe false. With the A-series proven as illogical, it follows that the universe could not have been caused. Thus, if the universe is not caused, there was no causer. 
--

  • CON questions the notion that the universe began, in hopes of showing that if the universe didn't begin on the account of the bible, my syllogism would not prove the nonexistence of God. They offer Hebrew translations of Genesis 1:1 which show that the term "heavens" refers to only that which is immediately around the Earth. 
==

  • PRO then, using sources from bible study tools, bible studies, blue letter bible, bible ref, bible hub, emerging scholars and Jehovah's witness shows that Genesis 1:1 does in fact describe the creation of the entire universe. PRO also offered bible verses to give context to his claim. 
    • "The heaven and the earth"
      • [this is] the normal phrase in the Bible for the universe. Deuteronomy 32:1; Psalm 148:13; Isaiah 2 
    • 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
--

  • CON then asserts that 
    • 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
  • Moreover, they repeat their Hebrew translation once more to affirm their point. 

==

  • PRO the repeats the sources and bible versus that he provided in R2, as they were unrefuted. 
--

  • CON drops the anti-Kalam argument and assert that they are convinced by my interpretation of Genesis 1:1 
    • Pro has argued for the evidence of the Bible and it’s various scholars, I accept his argument.
==

As my opponent has conceded that Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of the entire universe, their initial rebuttal has been refuted. However, as they completely drop the "anti-Kalam" contention opted to deliver their acceptance under a separate section, it follows that the other premises are valid. To recall, 

  • 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
With my opponents major critique put to rest, and their minor rebuttals on this syllogism refuted by myself and left unextended, this alone is enough to affirm the resolution. 

==

II. The anti ontological

  • PRO once again opens a syllogism 
    • P1. The creation of the universe is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. 
    • P2. It is more impressive to complete act X whilst you are handicapped than when you are completely able
    • P3. The most formidable handicap possible for a creator would be there non-existence 
    • P4. If p1 then it is conceivable that the greatest feat would be to create the universe while not existing. 
    • P5. 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 does not exist.
--

  • CON critique the first premise. 
    • The creation of the world is not the “most marvellous” creation: that achievement is man, being “in the image of God,”
==

  • PRO questions the validity of the oppositions rebuttal 
    • 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? 
  • PRO further shows that this is not an issue, and that his opponent can "change all references of "universe" to "mankind" and refer to this syllogism again."
--

Unfortunately,  PRO accidently names a small section of the anti-Kalam as the anti-ontological argument. This leads to CON rebutting the anti-Kalam in the anti-ontological argument. However, this is unacceptable, as PRO titles his next paragraph very clearly as Affirmation of CONTENTION III, the Anti-ontological argument. 

  • CON, due to the technical difficulty described above rebuts the anti-Kalam. Personally, I am very dubious that my opponent sincerely missed my 3000 word section on the anti ontological argument (recapped above). 
==

  • PRO notes how CON ignores his suggestion to "change all references of "universe" to "mankind" and refer to this syllogism again." As such, he then changes the words around for him and presents it once again. Note that the revised syllogism is exactly the same as the one I recapped above, except that the word universe has been substituted with mankind. 
  • By doing this, it is certain that the p1 is agreed upon, as my opponent explicitly asserted that the creation of mankind is the most marvellous creation. 
--

  • CON replies 
    • "we re-visit, once again. Been here R1, R2, and now R3. And, again, Pro begins his defence of the argument with his failed anti-ontological syllogism: 
      • P1:  The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable
        • To which I rebutted:  The creation of the world is not the “most marvellous” creation: that achievement is man.
==

Presented like this, with no room for my opponent to hide, the problem is clear. Since R2, I have urged my opponent to change all references of "universe" to "mankind". When my opponent does not do so, I do it for them. Nevertheless they completely ignore it! It really is quite amazing how my opponent chooses to rebut a syllogism of which I have already agreed to change and in fact have changed for them. Clearly, my opponent is not here for a productive conversation. 

As commenters have bought to my awareness, it appears that my argument may be too complicated. Though I highly doubt this is the reason why my argument is being ignored, the following is the extraordinarily simplified version of this argument. This is only to help your understanding, if you wish to rebut this argument, refer to the above syllogism. 

  • Bones: P1, the most marvellous creation is man, is pretty digestible, as it was a statement that my opponent made leaving no room for digestion. P2, doing X when handicapped is more marvellous than doing it not handicapped is also very simple (who would reasonably say running 100 meters is easier with 1 leg than with 2?). Therefore it follows that if a non-existent God is more marvellous than an existent God, the Christian God is not real, as it alleges to both exist and be the most marvellous.
==

III. Occam's Razor

  • PRO's position can be summed up as follows
    • 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). 
--

  • CON rebuts by showing the irony of how PRO can advocate for cancelling plurality whilst making an 8000 word essay on the Kalam. 
==

  • PRO calls this garble. 
-- 

  • CON points at how "ironic" PRO's position is. They show that whilst PRO made 7 arguments, CON only made 2, hence less plurality. 
==

  • PRO states that this shows CON does not understand Occam's razor. They finish by stating "By this logic, I might as well have just typed “no” as my round and won! After all you can’t get much shorter than 0 arguments and 0 rebuttals."
--

  • CON repeats himself 
    • Pro missing... an 8,000 godless word... a fishing trip... 3,000-word essay in R2... duplicate 3,000 word... an excess plurality? It’s like arguing with a sock puppet with too many toes.
==

Obviously my opponent still misses the point. Perhaps if they did not want to see a duplicate essay, they shouldn't have ignored it. Clearly my opponent has no understanding of what the Occam's razor is. So I must repeat myself, "by this logic, I might as well have just typed “no” as my round and won! After all you can’t get much shorter than 0 arguments and 0 rebuttals."

==

VI Boeing 747

  • PRO opens with a syllogism. 
    • 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.
Essentially, the Boeing argument asserts that complicated things cannot just pop into existence. As God is complicated and he wasn't a product of natural selection, he likely doesn't exist. 

--

  • CON postulates "a continuous pattern of humans becoming Gods, begetting/creating subsequent generations of man, who become gods, and so on, from eternity to eternity"
==

  • PRO points at the red herring and reminds his opponent that this debate is about the Christian God, which allegedly created everything (he is supposed to be the most powerful being, of which nothing else is more powerful). 
  • PRO further exposes that this is an infinite regress. 
--

  • CON states "I’ve argued that as God created us, thus he, himself, began, as a mortal man who has progressed beyond mortality into a god, a supreme being."
==

This is a textbook definition of an infinite regress, for then the question becomes who came first, God or man? Who created the mortal man who became God? Also notice how my opponent makes this outrageous assertion without providing any evidence whatsoever, we are supposed to just accept it as a fact. Who says a mortal man became God? Who said this is how it works? This is all just my opponents wishful thinking. 

Again, notice the double standard that is religion is escaping here. Imagine if I were to say, "no the holocaust didn't happen" and when asked why, I said "it was a hoax, no Jew ever died". Notice how this is extremely similar to what my opponent is saying, in that both claims are completely unsupported. Just like how there is no such thing as "my version of history", there is no such thing as "your version of religion". If you want to prove that God began as a mortal man, you need to prove this claim beyond reasonable doubt. 

==

V Animal suffering 

  • PRO opened by asserting that an omnibenevolent being would not allow for animals to suffer needlessly. PRO demonstrated that the usual objections to the problem of evil, namely free will, does not sufficiently reply to the animal suffering problem, as "free will does not reply to why wild bush fires set alight koalas, causing them undeniable agony"
--

  • CON replies by stating that there is no biblical indication that God created a perfect world.
==

  • PRO states
    • 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. 
  • Furthermore, they provide 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. 
--

  • CON asserts;
    • Pro alleges that God should have created a perfect creation. What’s the point, given the purpose of our creation in the first place? 
  • CON drops the argument that PRO made. 
  • CON drops the syllogism that PRO made. 
==

  • PRO calls out the fact that CON drops both his arguments. PRO aptly reply to allegations that they want a "perfect world" from God by stating
    • This is not what I have alleged, this is what your belief should entitle.
  • PRO extends his syllogism. 
--

  • CON states "all living things experience suffering. That’s life. It is allowed by God’s free will"
  • CON replies to the syllogism by stating 
    • Bones: P2: if everyone is loved, then they would not suffer for any reason.
      • Fauxlaw: And they don’t suffer for no reason. They suffer, at times, for their own actions.
==

My opponent first statement truly demonstrates that fact that they are not interested in a productive conversation. Using the "free will" defence is poor, as I pre-emptively stated in my R1. 
  • Bones: "free will does not reply to why wild bush fires set alight koalas, causing them undeniable agony"
To Faux's second statement, being that no one doesn't suffer unnecessarily, I recommend them to tell that to the Jews who've been gassed to death. Oh wait, you can't, because they're dead. 

To voters, I recommend a re-read of this contention, as it has been ignored and rendered a "bad point" by my opponent. Clearly, as God knows everything, he knew that his creation would lead to koalas burning to death, for factors completely outside of there control. This would be akin to me putting a new born child into a pot of boiling water. Nothing the baby can do will get it out of the pot. 

--

VI Omnipotence Paradox

  • PRO opened with multiple syllogisms which prove that exposes the contradiction of a supreme being. The following is a shortened version of it. 
    • p1. God can do anything
    • p2. God can do something that he doesn't want to
    • p3. God can do X action even if he doesn't want to
    • c1. If God didn't make you do X 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 
--

  • CON does not understand my argument and vaguely asserts the importance of free will. 
    • I have no idea to what Pro refers
  • Moreover, CON voices a common objection to religion 
    • 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... Isn’t that a poor expense of energy?
==

  • PRO compensates for his opponents inability to digest the initial syllogism, so he presents a simplified version. 
  • In regards to "eliminating" all suffering, PRO points at the difference between omnipotence and omnibenevolence. While the prior is simply an ability, the latter requires action. It is clear that in order for one to say they love something, they cannot let it suffer needlessly. 
--

  • In regards to Bone's statement,
    •  “If you love something infinitely, you would be willing to do anything for it.” 
      • CON replies
        • "No; only what is necessary"
  • CON reaffirms the idea that even though God is all-powerful and all-loving, he does not always need to act to with maximum power. 
  • CON introduces the idea of free will and states that suffering is not God's creation, but a creation of man. 
==

  • In reply to what CON stated above, PRO replies
    • Doing “what is necessary” is not all loving. If you raise a child, and you give them the bare minimum to survive, “what is necessary”, you are not all loving, you’re a dickhead.
  • Furthermore, PRO states that even if giving "what is necessary" to survive is the criteria for omnipotence, God is not even fulfilling this. 
    • "As my animal suffering contention asserts, there are billion of vertebrates alone which are suffering unimaginable pain at this moment, not because of “free will”, or a strive to “the greater good”, or as “punishment”, but because they are quite helplessly placed into that situation"
  • PRO further demonstrates the difference between all-powerful and all-loving. 
    • The prior does not oblige one to any action. 
    • The latter does oblige one to an action.
      • To use another example, imagine you have just burnt your parents alive and have been caught by the police. In the interrogation room, when asked if you love your parents, it would you be right to say "yeah I love them and all that, but that doesn't mean I always have to love them, after all that would be poor expense of energy"
        • This example epitomise how love requires action to prove. You cannot "take a break" from loving and still claim that you love someone. As soon as you stop loving, by virtue of truism, you are no longer loving the being. Thus, it is impossible to both love a being whilst putting it into a situation in which it has no choice but to suffer. 
  • PRO reminds his opponent to address the initial syllogism which he has already simplified. 
--

  • CON asserts
    • Pro, like many presenting an omnipotence paradox essentially says God is like the ultimate battery-powered heart. It can only perform full-force, it has no rheostat to vary the performance as needed. My argument adds the rheostat
==

The claim made in bold is not my claim. I am not the one who says God is an infinite battery heart, that's the proposition you are defending. You are the one who thinks there is an omnibenevolent God, not me. Quite literally the definition of omnibenevolence is to love infinitely. To add a hypothetical rheostat would mean that God is a finite being capable of only finite love. This is a very different claim to infinite love. To assert that there is a being who loves every living thing despite the undeniable evidence that billions of organisms are suffering immensely is simply absurd. 

Take note that my opponent does not address the example I presented, likely because it epitomises this point too well. To voters I ask, what does love mean? What does it entitle? Think about something which you radiate this emotion towards. Would you burn the thing you claim you love? Would you put it in a system where it has no choice but to suffer? What if worse yet, what if knew what you were doing would lead to there unimaginable suffering (omniscience)? What if you could stop it (omnipotence) but you didn't? Would it be logical to say that you still love that thing? 

==

VII Bible inaccuracies

  • PRO opens by listing inaccuracies/contradictions in the bible. 
--

  • CON accepts this 
    • I accept that the Bible is not 100% accurate. 
  • CON provides reasons why the bible contains contradictions. There case is that the bible is not necessarily the only "word of God". Though there are contradictions, these are due to "corruption, translating issues, the Ecumenical Councils bickering over correct understanding of text and intentional corruption" 
--

  • PRO ignores the reasons to why there are contradictions in the bible and focus's on the fact that the contradictions are there. After all, if a history textbook contains flaws, the reasons listed above does not change the fact that the book shouldn't be taken literally. The following syllogism is provided. 
    • 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. 
--

  • CON drops this argument and the syllogism. 
== 

  • PRO extends
--

  • CON accuses PRO of repeating himself
    • A fourth repetition of inaccuracies? Pluralities, anyone?
==

Maybe if you didn't ignore my argument I wouldn't need to repeat myself. Refer to the syllogism above. 

==

Rebuttals

“I am allowed two rounds to rebut” 

Fauxlaw: Pro accuses that I have not offered any argument until R2, leaving Pro this round three, and round four, to rebut my arguments... totally ignoring my arguments of R1, to wit, X, and XI … Biblical defects... problem of evil

  • The two "arguments" were not arguments at all. The first is a rebuttal against an argument I made, and the second is a rebuttal of an argument I didn't make. I urge voters to take not of the difference between an argument and a rebuttal. Even if, for example, my opponent shows that the problem of evil is not a problem, that does not in any way prove the existence of God, it only proves that a popular argument against God is invalid. This would be akin to me "proving" that there is a teapot orbiting earth by refuting all scepticism. Of course, even if there is no valid argument against the orbiting tea pot, the idea can be discarded if evidence is not provided for it. 
  • Moreover, take not that my opponent has provided 2 new arguments in the second last round of this debate, giving me only 1 round to rebut both the arguments. Consider, on the other hand, myself, who made their 7 contentions crystal clear from the first round.
  • Fauxlaw: I do not  “fire all of my guns at once
    • Great, next time, I'll waive my first round, let you make your weak case for God and wait until the second last round to fire all VII contentions at you, giving you only 1 round to rebut them, affirm your case and conclude. Good strat, actually! 
==

Theosis

Fauxlaw: 
  • P1: God will not fail to make deserving humans exactly like him.
  • P2: Man can individually fail, by his own free agency to resist being made like God.
  • C:   Therefore, God exists
STRIKE 1: Using God to prove God exists is circular reasoning.
STRIKE 2: If God created man but God only comes into existence after evolving from a man to a God, which came first, God or man. 

If this isn't a hitchslap, then I don't know what is. 

==

Faith Rebuttal 


To elaborate, my opponent provides a handy guide which is supposed to prove the existence of God. 

1.    In order to gain wisdom, faith must be worked.
We can stop right here. No, wisdom can be gained by the viewing of testable facts. Faith, is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Why would you want to "have faith" when facts are in front of you? 

There are some things, some believe, that are beyond reason and logic.  This is fair enough, but the moment we accept this, absent of any objective method of telling what is beyond reason and why anything goes, anything can be explained away without having to explain anything.

Imagine the following scenario. You are in a room with two bottles, one containing water and the other containing poison. Would you rather a) blindfold yourself and "have faith" that you will drink the water or b) not have a blindfold on and be able to look, therefore gathering evidence, and conclude which spells P O I S O N. 

 In every instance when Master Yoda mentions  “the Force,” think faith and its rightful application
There's a difference between telling Luke to have "faith" and your belief in God. In the situation of Star Wars, the Jedi Master pushed Luke relentlessly, working to help him strengthen his connection with the ForceLuke Skywalker received advanced training in the ways of the Force under Jedi Master Yoda on Dagobah, he didn't just wake up unprepared and say "well I'll have faith and hope this will work". When Yoda refers to "faith", he refers to the colloquial definition, being "don't doubt yourself". Luke was not suffering from lack of skill, he simply needed to bolster his confidence. This is very different to religion. Unlike Luke, who can reasonably expect to be a decent Jedi after "undergoing advanced training", Christians cannot expect anything as they have not in any way proven the existence of God. 

Consider for example, the sport of boxing. In between rounds, coaches often give words of encouragement to their fighter, by saying things along the lines of "you've done the hard work, you can do this don't doubt yourself". To apply the logic of religious people would create a situation in which the coach tells his fighter who has never trained in his life before, "you've done the hard work, you've got this". The first situation is not "faith" as there is evidence that the athlete can perform well (his training), the words are just encouragement. The second however, is "faith", as there is no evidence that the athlete can perform well (lack of training). 

Thomas and his ways

My opponent ignores all my criticism. All

Pro begins by the absurdity that motion, cause and contingency are saying the same thing. No, I disagree. 
Recall that I stated "the first three are the same thing with different wording, and they can be considered as one argument. All involve an infinite regress - the answer to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum". Not the exact some thing sure but they all commit the same problem, that is even if the premises are correct, they only prove that there is an unmoved mover. What is true, however, is that 

  • My opponent drops the first issue, being that "it is entirely unwarranted to assume that God is immune to the regress". 
    • This is a clear example of the special pleading fallacy
  • My opponent drops the second issue being "that even if we accept the first 3 statements, this will only prove that an unmoved mover exists. It would not prove this unmoved mover still exists, is a being, is conscious, posses the 4 omni's, listen to prayers, forgive people of their sins, read the innermost thoughts of people or that he created an afterlife for all good people to congregate"

Perfection is not a comparison at all, as Pro alleges... Period.
Yes period, no questions. Do I have to remind my opponent that this is a debate, and saying "period" does not settle all disputes? To no one's surprise, my opponent drops some more issues, including

  • The third issue, being that "one does not need a "maximum" to judge an action, they can simply compare it to what is neutral. For example, I do not need to know how to perfectly raise my pet in order to know that smashing it's skull onto a brick wall is not productive for its well being. I can compare smashing my pets skull onto a brick wall(evil) with not smashing it's skull into a brick (neutral) and determine that the prior is good for my pet"
  • The fourth issue being "even if I were to grant that a maximum is required to judge an action, it is possible to substitute any dimension of comparison for the term "perfect". For example, one could argue that there are degrees of evil, and therefore there must be an infinitely evil being, let's call him God"
    • The implication of this is that even if the "perfection" argument is granted as true, it still does not warrant the Christian God. It only implies that anything of which varies in degrees must have a maximum. As stated above, this warrants an evil, misogynistic, homophobic, jealous, stingy and brutal God. Wait dammit, I just proved the Christian God exists. 

Teleology, by Pro, is being confused with Causation.
More misrepresentation. To recall , I stated 
  • Bones: The argument usually uses an analogy of which goes along the lines of "a painting requires a painter to paint". The teleological argument uses the following syllogism, or a variation. 
    • I provided a source of what the teleological argument is and proceeded to rebut it. How my opponent thinks I have mixed up causation and teleology is beyond more. 
  • Recall that the following arguments were also,  unsurprisingly, dropped by my opponent. 
    • The fifth issue is that this commits the false analogy fallacy. The syllogism is flawed as it concludes that because two things share one similarity, they must also share other qualities. 
    • The sixth issue is that this is a false cause fallacy. This is committed when it is asserted that complexity can only be caused by a designer. Not only has this never been proven to be true, it has actually been proven to be completely incorrect.
      • I recommend a thorough re-read of these two cases where I elaborate with examples and syllogism. 
==

Conclusion

With the cumbersome amount of evidence provided, most of which was dismissed, I have undoubtedly affirmed the resolution, as the contrapositive defies general relativity, special relativity, quantum physics, logic and the current state of the world. I have shown that my opponents arguments are all faulty, some of which only affirm a small part of our understanding of God (unmoved mover doesn't equate to a loving, prayer listening God) and others which are riddled with logical fallacies.

In advance, I thank any potential voters, and urge them to give an informed and accurate vote.  
 
VOTE PRO
Con
Resolution: THBT: The God of the Christian bible likely does not exist.
 
I General rebuttals:  
 
I.a Pro's R4 begins with re-cap of our three-round dialogue for readers’ “clarity,” but should we trust the re-cap of my BoP? Nope.
 
I.a For example, Pro’s R4 says I cannot make rebuttal in my R4 because Pro will not have an opportunity to respond. Pro’s own rules in Description:  “Rule #2:  No new arguments are to be made in the final round.”   Rebuttals are not affirmation of that participant’s arguments, but response to the opponant’s arguments, explaining why the opponant's arguments are wrong.[1]  
 
I.b  Pro continues to confuse arguments with rebuttals, also claiming that my R1, X Defeating the argument of biblical defects, and XI Defeating the problem of evil were rebuttals without Pro argument. Please note that my arguments may raise any subject whatsoever in support of my BoP, whether my opponent brings them up, or not Recall Pro saying in his 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.”   Is Pro confused whether I have rebuttals, or not?
 
I.b.1 Let’s address that claim, “… one of which I did not even make.”   In Pro’s R1, before I posted my R1, Pro said, in the “Animal suffering” section, sub-head “Parasitism,”   “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.’”   What to think of Pro’s claim when it is clear he did make argument re: the problem of evil? My argument is, contrary to Pro’s claim, the existence of God in my R1, XI.c.2:  “God plants a garden with good and evil in it. Period,”  citing Genesis 2: 8, 9.
 
II Rebuttal: Pro R4: A litany [Repetitious]
 
II.a Pro’s R1 litany of seven arguments have been repeated off and on, with at least one of them in every round, most of which Pro claims I’ve dropped. We’ll see. The seven are, in the order presented in R4:
 
II.a.1  Anti-Kalam:  Pro offered repetition of the anti-Kalam syllogism of R1, to which I rebutted with R1, II Rebuttal: Pro R1: Kalam, A-theory, B-theory, what is time, and other imponderables. A fishing trip.  I questioned what A-Theory, etc., had to do with the likelihood God does not exist, since God was never mentioned, but was met with repetitive theories of time, plus the litany I have dubbed “a menagerie.” None spoke to the non-existence of God, so I still ask, what’s Pro’s BoP? That God “likely does not exist?” My conclusion of R1 was never addressed: “I suppose if God is not once mentioned, one can attempt the claim.”
 
II.a.1.A Pro: “Unfortunately,  PRO accidently names a small section of the anti-Kalam as the anti-ontological argument. This leads to CON rebutting the anti-Kalam in the anti-ontological argument.”  So Pro makes a mistake, and blames me for my response. Cute, but, no forgiveness. Pro can own his mistakes. Pro clearly sat his anti-Kalam in R1 within the A-theory/B-theory, etc. fishing trip.
 
II.a.2  Anti-ontology:   Pro sprouts new, failed syllogisms in each round, and claims in each round to date that I have avoided rebuttal. Something similar to Pro’s argument that I have yet to demonstrate that it is  likely  God exists. My stated BoP from Pro is just that;  likely.  This is his choice of an operative Resolution word, yet it seems, curiously, that with each succeeding round, my BoP, to satisfy Pro, shifts from likely to absolute. I must prove that God exists, while Pro’s Resolution needs mere likelihood that God does not exist. We’ll put that to bed, later.

II.a.2.A  I will demonstrate, round by round, Pro’s variable syllogisms, which, as with any syllogism, regardless of number or propositions Pn,   fails if even one proposition is false in each syllogism, thereby failing the syllogism. By the way, let’s note for the record that Pro alters his syllogisms in each round after my rebuttals. It might be an indication that, one, Pro acknowledges that I rebut each round, and, two, that maybe the argument does not hold regardless of how Pro varies the syllogisms.  If there was a pre-existing, authoritative syllogism tied to the anti-ontological argument as Pro developed it, surely Pro would have offered and cited it. Note that Pro did cite an ontological argument in R1 from Anselm of Canterbury. Pro’s anti-ontological argument appears to be a personal creation that has been demonstrated faulty in all iterations,  to wit:
 
R1. Pro R1, P1: “The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.” I rebutted in R1, IV, that, no, the most marvelous creation is man. That is the last creation of all, saving the best for last on “day” 6. That new species have evolved since then is just evidence that creation continues by that mode, events which occurred after God rested on the 7th  “day,” and did not retire as some allege. But all that is secondary to the main point: The creation of the world was accomplished on “day” 3, just another preparatory “day,” each day building toward the ultimate creation: us. 
 
R2 Pro R2, P2:  “The universe began to exist.”  My rebuttal of this claim in my R2, VIII stated: “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.”
 
I further noted in this R2, VIII, that, “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.”   To which Pro questioned what Andromeda had to do with anything. Let Pro wonder. I related it as having nothing to do with our seasons, but our Sun and Moon, and Earth’s position among them certainly do. Therefore, I conclude that God did not create the entire universe. That argument runs into the times and seasons purpose of just two lights in the sky, and breaks upon it.
 
R3 Pro R3, P2:  “It is more impressive to complete act X whilst you are handicapped than when you are completely able”  My rebuttal, R3, VII cited from Romans 1: 25  “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.” The point I made in rebuttal was that man should not glory in himself, whether whole or handicapped, i.e., “…serving the creature more than the Creator.” Therefore, this proposition is also false, and therefore fails the syllogism.
 
R4 Pro R4:  “Presented like this, with no room for my opponent to hide, the problem is clear. Since R2, I have urged my opponent to change all references of ‘universe’ to ‘mankind.’”  Pro wishes to feed my rebuttal by his suggestions? No thank you. I have already demonstrated my replacement for Pro’s argued “universe” by my original argument of the Hebrew sense of Genesis 1: 1 is not the entire universe, but a more local group of stars, perhaps just our galaxy, since, among that limited grouping, Genesis 1: 14, cited above, discusses the purpose of two specific “lights,” our Sun and Moon, to set of days, years, times, and seasons. The entire universe is not needed for that.
 
II.a.2.B Therefore, in all four rounds, Pro has attempted nothing but failed syllogisms on this matter. I must conclude that the anti-ontological argument, as Pro has waged it, is not a valid argument to support his Resolution, at all, let alone as a likelihood. This will be revisited.
 
II.a.3  Occam’s razor:  Pro claims I should be embarrassed by my representation of Occam’s razor as an avoidance of pluralities, i.e., the law of parsimony. He claims I just don’t understand it. Then why did we have the menagerie of characters Pro put on a bus, and put on stage in the fishing expedition referenced in every one of my rounds, from R1 to R4? The law of parsimony has been violated by Pro, over and over again, thus demonstrating that the lack of understanding of Occam’s razor severs Pro’s argument; just by style. Here’s the deal: Occam is discussing that the nature of plurality hinders, and does not help an argument. Pro’s menagerie: [from my R3, VIII]   “Is Pro missing the point that multiple references to atheists, and multiple references to bible scholars, and an 8,000 godless word essay in R1, a fishing trip including 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, a 3,000-word essay in R2, and a duplicate 3,000 word essay in R3 is exactly what is described by the law of parsimony; an excess of pluralities?”
 
IV.a.3.A  The simplicity of my rebuttal, and BoP, is this: Since Pro’s Resolution allows use of the Holy Bible as source material, having entered it into the debate as evidence descriptive of the Christian God we discuss, Pro opened the evidence door, and I walked through it. The Christian God is described as creator of “heaven and earth.” Good enough for my BoP.
 
II.a.4  Boeing 747:  It has taken on too many passengers, namely, the menagerie. What happened to our bus? 
 
II.a.4.A  I repeat my R3 rebuttal:   “IX.a Other than repeating the Pro Boeing argument ad infinitum,  another plurality, Pro finally offers a singular new rebuttal:  
“However, a God created through this process   [Pro means natural selection]  is not the God which you are arguing in favour for, which renders this entire point false.” But, I am not arguing for a God created by natural selection, but Pro has argued in R2, and R3, that it is the God I argue. No. I’ve argued that as God created us, thus he, himself, began, as a mortal man who has progressed beyond mortality into a god, a supreme being. Pro has completely misunderstood, either by refusal or misconception, my R2 argument, X.b, and is further explained by my argument above from  R3, IX.a.”
 
II.a.5   Animal suffering:  Pro offers a new syllogism, attributed to “they,” whoever that is:
 
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
C:  God is not all loving. 
 
II.a.5.A  This P1 harkens back to Pro’s argument that God should have created a perfect world where no bad things happen. I’ve already demonstrated by Genesis 2: 8, 9 [see R4, I.b.1, above] that God created the world with both good and evil in it, and that all creatures are subject to those conditions. It is not our purpose to be free of these challenges, but to overcome them, even by eventually overcoming death, the last enemy. [See my R1, VIII.b #2]. Animals are included in that promise, being living creatures on Earth.
 
II.a.6  Omnipotence paradox: If Pro is attempting simplicity by his R4 defense of R4’s omnipotence argument, the result is a blend of R1 syllogisms, to wit,
 
P1: God can do anything
P2: God can do something that he doesn’t want to
P3: God can do X action even if he doesn’t want to
C1: If God didn't make you do X 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    [a certain  what? Pro does not complete the sentence; therefore, this C2 is nonsense] 
 
II.a.6.A  First, let’s ask how, exactly, Pro is upholding his BoP by proposing the existence of God since Pro’s BoP is to demonstrate God’s  likely non-existence, yet he is proposing acts of God?  Pro has been asked this question, or challenged by this question on multiple occasions throughout the rounds of debate, and has avoided an answer.  Caveat lector.  
 
II.a.6.B Second, let’s recall that if any of the Pn are incorrect, the syllogism fails. It follows that multiple Pn can be incorrect, and the syllogism still fails. And that goes as well for multiple conclusions; all fail if any Pn  fails.
 
II.a.6.B.1 Pro’s P1 God able to do anything assumes God will do anything, simply because that is what omnipotence implies. The issue I have rebutted since R1 is that just because God, can, God will not do anything he does not need to do, or which would violate God’s own laws, one of which, though battled by Pro, by accusation of its “weakness,” that God will not remove our free agency. Witness, again, “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”[2]  God will not violate his own law: Free agency is man’s assurance that he can make mistakes, and there is a means to overcome making mistakes, because I’ve also demonstrated that God will make man as God, contingent on man’s ability to be obedient through repentance.
 
II.a.6.C Therefore, Pro’s P1 fails, as does the syllogism, and Pro’s omnipotence paradox.
 
II.a.6.D Pro quotes me: “I have no idea to what Pro refers…”  but manages to truncate my full statement to make it appear I do not understand Pro’s total omnipotence paradox. No, let’s complete my statement for the record from my R1, VIII.b:  “I have no idea to what Pro refers by the repetitious “concession Bones…”   Pro never defines his own referral. How am I to respond when Pro fails to complete his own assertions, just like letting C2, above, slip away without completion?
 
II.a.7  Bible inaccuracies: I repeat my R1 rebuttal of this issue:  “X.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.”  Pro has never resolved this rebuttal.
 
II.a.7.1 I further refer readers to my R1, X argument, Addressing and defeating the Argument of Biblical Defects [ABD],  much too long to re-quote here. I will conclude with that argument’s conclusion:  “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.’[3]     That is how to overcome confusion, but Drange, an atheist who was cited earlier in this R1 argument, could not be bothered, and neither can Pro. That is self-imposed limitation, and Pro was to answer for it, but never did.
 
III Defense: Who created God
 
III.a  “Who created the first God, if God is a being who is only created by Gods?”   Pro asks in R3.  Who said there was a ‘first God?’  I didn’t. That is entirely on Pro. Isn’t he supposed to be arguing against there being a likely god, first, last, or otherwise? That is trying to gage time by Pro’s handsless clock. The beauty and simplicity of my argument is that there is no clock. There is no time in eternity. An Occam’s razor simplicity, if you will. A line, by mathematic definition, has no beginning and no end.
 
In Geometry a line:
• is straight (no bends), 
• has no thickness, and 
• extends in both directions without end (infinitely).[4]  
III.a.1  How does one clock that? The same source defines a ray as a line with a beginning point; Pro’s ‘first God.’ There is no first, as I have argued, and there will not be a last. Above is the definition of eternity, as well. Why should the term be truncated just because Pro may not be able to conceive of eternity, needing to justify infinite regression as more than a “circular reference.”  
 
III.a.2  Open the circled coil into a straight line, one can draw it forever with a broad-stroke felt-tip pen. Pro’s infinite regression becomes finite only because he does not have a pencil with a tip small enough to draw an infinite regression, or, for that matter, infinite progression, but that does not negate the concept, contrary to Pro’s allegation. Get a better pencil, and draw a better bus. Draw in infinite line.
 
III.a.3  It is a conundrum more easily, and briefly explained by simply understanding there is no conundrum [another Occam’s razor simplicity?]: God is a man; a holy man, a perfect man; the most holy and perfect in our experience, and he is not alone, and we can join him. To limit God is ultimately to limit ourselves. Why do we do that? We argue for our limitations? They’re ours. I choose, by my free agency, to get off that bus. That bus has a limited run, and is a circular reference. Get a better pencil, draw a better bus.
 
IV Defense: Theosis
 
IV.a Pro claims Theosis is invalid by “strike 1:” it is using God to prove God, and is, therefore, a circular reference, according to Pro.  I present Rene Descartes: “Cogito ergo sum”[I think, therefore I am]  This is accepted philosophy, using a thinking man to prove a man. What’s the difference between proving man and proving God?[5]
 
IV.b  But this rebuttal by Pro misses the point of Theosis, which was summarized by
St. Athanasius:  “God became man so that men might become gods.”  That “god” becoming man refers to Jesus Christ, who is the Christian God of Pro’s Resolution, which implies that before Jesus was a man, he was a god. God the Father, the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh and in the spirit, went through the same process in an earlier generation that the Bible acknowledges, so one can deduce it, but Pro may not understand the implications of Genesis:  “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”[6]
 
IV.c Pro comes closer to rebuttal of the argument by   “Strike 2:  If God created man but God only comes into existence after evolving from a man to a God, which came first, God or man.”   The question still fails to rebut the argument because the answer was given before the question. It is: 
 
IV.c.1 A wrong question formation. The question still assumes a beginning: “God only comes into existence…”  Pro still misinterprets what eternity is: there is no beginning and no end.  Until Pro can conceive that concept, he is in his  “hitchslap,”  whatever that is; the word does not exist in the OED. I do not accept urban dictionary words.
 
V Rebuttal: Pro R4: Faith rebuttal
 
V.a Pro claims, “This section is an appeal to faith.”  Yes, it is. Pro even acknowledges that I  “provide a handy guide… to prove the existence of God.”  Yes, I do. It is available to anyone who wants to sincerely know whether God exists, or not. That Pro ridicules the process as “a hitchslap” is a self-limitation Pro is free to engage, but his resistance is not an adequate rebuttal.
 
V.b Consider this attempt by Pro to suggest that a handicapped person can achieve great things, and I agree; they can. So, what prevents Pro from signing on to the suggestion that a person who lacks wisdom can obtain that wisdom by the steps I laid out in a trial of faith, as outlined in my R3, II: Faith: Driving the vehicle of the Five Ways. I further suggest it is by a similar process, such as provided by Master Yoda to Luke Skywalker in the use of the Force, to accomplish great things. Pro opposes the faith argument, yet supports the handicapped achievement, without convincing us of the method used to accomplish it. 
 
V.c Pro says,  “…he  [Luke Skywalker]  didn't just wake up unprepared and say "well I'll have faith and hope this will work"  Did I suggest preparation was not required to work the trial of faith? No. My R3, II.a: 
 
“…2.    Having faith, hope for truth must be applied. Hope is not a mere wish, just as faith is not mere belief.
 
“3.    By hope, let patience have her way; this wisdom sought comes by patience. Do not doubt. That yields to evil, and thus, faith works only toward that which, though unseen, is true. Faith will not function in things which are not true. 
 
“4.    Prepare thoughts, hopes, desires, and ask God.By faith, the wisdom sought will be obtained. Thus hope, desire, patience and faith in that which is true will yield the knowledge and wisdom that is in God.” 
 
V.c.1 What was Pro’s method? Pro likened Luke’s experience to a boxer in training, whose trainer is in the corner of the ring. The trainer tells the boxer between rounds: “You’ve done the hard work, you can do this, don’t doubt yourself.”  Except, in Luke’s case, he’s a novice boxer. He does not yet belong in this ring; he’s never done this “hard work” before to this degree. He’s demonstrated some good aim, but the technique is lacking to do more than push a button to fire a weapon. To lift a spacecraft out of the bog; that’s hard work Luke has yet to even think of doing. No, the boxer, today, comes “asking for workman’s wages, come looking for a job…”[7]   and nowhere close to the lightweight’s championship belt. 
 
VI Rebuttal: Pro R3, R4: Thomas Aquinas and his Five Ways
 
VI.a Pro accuses I do not address his issues, that “My opponent ignores all my criticism. All.”   Do I? Let’s see:
 
VI.a.1  Pro’s R3 rebutted that  “The first three are the same thing with different wording…”   Yes, I acknowledge Pro said more. Pro speaks of Motion, Cause, and Contingency. Pro is saying these three concepts are the same thing, but what is that one thing? Pro’s R4 says they are all “infinite regress.”
 
VI.a.1.A Is Motion is infinite regress? According the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, an infinite regress is  “…a series of appropriately related elements with a first member but no last member”[8]   Pro says Motion is “nothing moves without a mover.” Correct, that is close enough to “…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.”  But that does not apply to there being a first or last element to motion. Remaining either at rest or in motion is perpetual, according to the law. 
 
VI.a.2 Causation is next: nothing causes itself, and there is no cause from nothing.  Creatio ex nihilo  is not how “heaven and earth” were made. And, as creation continues to this day [new speciation], there is no “last member” to this concept, either.
 
VI.a.3 Contingency is next: If nothing existed first, then nothing could have been created. Creation did not occur  ex nihilo; it was accomplished with matter and energy that were disorganized, but not from nothing. The Holy Bible speaks to the Earth being without form, and void [meaning without nothing] and there was a deep, and there were waters [Genesis 1: 21]. There was, in this case, no first member, and there will not be a last.
 
VI.b All this was reviewed in my R3, I.a sub-paragraphs, including my discussion of the remaining two Ways, Degrees of perfection, and Teleology, so Pro’s claim of my ignoring “All” Pro’s criticisms, and his six issues are flat wrong.  Caveat lector.
 
VII Defense: Pro’s failure of a proper Resolution
 
VII.a I will occupy the remaining ground to explain the flaw of the Resolution I touched on in R1: Pro’s choice of a keyword. It is the flaw of likelihood; that “The God of the Christian Bible  likely  does not exist.”   Too bad Pro never picked up on the matter to argue for it. I will defend it, now.
 
VII.b My defense takes the form of the Bayesian statistical method,[9]   which, in one analysis, discusses the differentiation between probability and likelihood. In statistics, they are distinctly different.   “The distinction between probability and likelihood is fundamentally important: Probability attaches to possible results; likelihood attaches to hypotheses.”[10]
 
VII.b.1 Probability:  Suppose you predict the result of tossing a coin 10 times. Eleven possible results exist: 0 correct predictions through 10 correct predictions. These are the mutually exclusive and exhaustive results. There can be nothing additional.
 
VII.b.1.A In the case of our debate, there are but two probable results: either God exists, or he does not.
 
VII.b.2 Likelihood:  Suppose we ask a test subject to predict how many correct predictions will be made, and the subject predicts there will be 7 correct predictions of the 10 coin tosses. Suppose the actual results match the prediction. 
 
VII.b.2.A In the case of our debate, the  likelihood of God’s non-existence, or existence, is on a sliding scale, evidenced by Pro’s variable syllogisms each round with different propositions in each. Were Pro to remain consistent in his argument of “likely does not exist,” Pro should have demonstrated the evidence of his R1 syllogism’s logic by defense of his Pn  and C, but, no, Pro offered variations on the syllogism wording in each round, else why change words from earlier rounds.
 
VII.c So, in our example of a test subject, after their predictions are made, we have the coin tossed, and observe the results. Let’s say the toss results in the 7 correct predictions our subject made.
 
VII.c.1 I say: “The subject just guessed.”
You say: “The subject is likely clairvoyant,” by which you mean that the subject is able to predict at a greater rate than normal predictions over the long run of the experiment with different subjects, who, in a normal bell curve of probabilities, will mostly predict just under to just over half; about 4 to 6 correct predictions.
 
VII.d Thus is demonstrated the nature of likelihood: it attaches not to results, but to hypotheses: exactly what Pro did in the selection of his Resolution verbiage. Pro’s problem with likelihood is that his Resolution is just as likely to be less than mid-range as more than mid-range relative to the likelihood of God’s existence. The word Pro wanted to support his Resolution was not  likely,  but  probable.
 
VII.e Therefore, Pro’s Resolution fails, because Pro never argued either likelihood, or probability, but, instead, argued in an absolute: God does not exist, at all.   Every one of his failed syllogisms, in all four rounds, conclude with this absolute, a mutually exclusive outcome. Therefore, the Resolution fails: the  probability is that the Biblical Christian God exists.  That is why Pro’s Resolution, his arguments, rebuttals, defenses, and conclusions are wrong.
 
I appreciate your attention to this debate, and I ask for your vote.