Instigator / Pro
21
1584
rating
5
debates
100.0%
won
Topic

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

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1640
Contender / Con
6
1696
rating
71
debates
70.42%
won
Description
~ 697 / 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 new arguments are to be made in the final round.
2. Definitions are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
3. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
4. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
5. A breach of rules 1-5 should result in a 1 point penalty.
6. No Kritiks.
7. Fauxlaw cannot participate
8. A breach in rules 6-8 should result an instant loss.

Round 1
Pro
I am not anti religion. I am anti sexism, anti racism, anti infanticide, anti homophobia, anti violence, anti misogyny, anti slavery, anti ignorance, anti child rape, anti oppression and anti delusion. 

- Bones 

Preliminary I: Rules

RECALL from the description of this debate 

  • 6. No Kritiks.
  • 7. Fauxlaw cannot participate.
  • 8. A breach in rules 6-8 should result an instant loss.
CON argues that "my membership profile clearly indicates I am “fauxlaw," and I therefore claim admissibility". Unfortunately, this demonstrates my opponents lack of understanding in the English language. Consider the following. 

  • ENGLISH CLUB
    • 2. Use a capital letter to begin a sentence or to begin speech
    • 6. Use a capital letter for people's names and titles
  • PROOFED
    • The following situations always require a capital letter:
      • The first word in a sentence
      • People’s names (e.g. ‘Donald’ or ‘Hillary’)
  • MONSASH EDUCATION 
    • Remember these basic rules:
      • Always use a capital letter to start a sentence.
      • Always use a capital letter at the beginning of a proper nouns. A proper noun is a specific person, place, or organisation.
  • UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND
    • Capitalise the first word of a sentence.The first word after a full stop is capitalised. Also, the first word of a direct quotation is capitalised, ifthe quotation is a complete sentence
      • Capitalise all personal names (real or fictitious, nickname or substitute for a name, animalor thing).
  • SKILLS YOU NEED
    • When to Use Capital Letters
      • Rule 1:
        • To Start a Sentence
        • There are no exceptions to this rule.
Thus, I will format this as multiple distinct syllogisms. 

  • P1. The word Fauxlaw is a proper noun 
    • P1.1 Names are proper nouns. 
    • P2.1 Fauxlaw is a name. 
    • C1.1 Fauxlaw is a proper noun
      • Valid via inductive reasoning.
  • P2. Proper nouns are spelt with their first letter capitalised.
    • Valid via sources provided. 
  • C3. From P1 and P2, the word Fauxlaw should be spelt with a capital F. 
--

  • P1. The phrase "Fauxlaw cannot participate." is a sentence. 
  • P2. Sentences begin with a capital letter. 
    • Valid via sources provided
  • C1. From P1 and P2, the sentence "Fauxlaw cannot participate" should (correctly) begin(s) with a capital letter.
--

  • P1. The rule "Fauxlaw cannot participate" prohibits user Fauxlaw from participating. 
  • P2. Fauxlaw is participating in this debate. 
  • C1. Fauxlaw has broken a rule 
--

  • P1. The breaching of a rule results in an instant loss. 
  • P2. Fauxlaw has breached a rule
  • C1. Fauxlaw's participation results in an instant loss. 
--

Evidently, upon accepting this debate, my opponent has unknowingly conceded this debate. My opponent's claim that his name is not Fauxlaw, but fauxlaw, even if true, which I have shown would be a violation of the English language, does not matter, as the word Fauxlaw was at the beginning of the sentence, meaning the first letter must be capital. 

Thus, unless my opponent somehow rewrites the English dictionary, 

 VOTE PRO. 

==

Preliminary: Foreword

Voters, do not let my arguments in the following section dissuade on the severity of my opponents violation of rules 6-8. I am simply presenting them to refine my own debating skills, not so much for actually winning this debate, as I have, without my contentions, already shown why I have rightfully won. However, if you are not convinced by the English dictionary, consider my first contention. 

Burden of proof 

The definition of BoP is 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. 
  • Furthermore, Hitchens Razor is a useful tool to apply when discussing the BoP. The razor "is an epistemological razor... says that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. Hitchens has phrased the razor in writing as "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
==

Contention 1: The anti-Kalam cosmological argument 
 
The Kalam cosmological argument from contingency, 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 this as such:
 
“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 first syllogism 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
 
P1: P --> Q
P2: ¬Q
C: ¬P
 
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, as without the existence of tensed facts, there is no distinction between the past, present and future. 
 
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 is absent. 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” be logically possible, either contingently or necessarily [3]. For example, it is impossible to assert 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 were not existent 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 community 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.1)
 
Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity depicts a universe where time 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.
 
This was corroborated by the phenomenon of ‘gravitational lensing’, where it was hypothesised under the theory of relativity that objects with mass curve the space-time around it, and that light that followed the curved geometry will appear distorted, or ‘lensed’ to an outside observer. This was tested by Arthur Eddington on 29 May 1919 during an eclipse, where it was observed that the light around the moon could be seen to be “slightly shifted” due to the moon’s gravitational influence curving the spatial geometry of the path that light was taking. Eddington’s observations published in 1920 confirmed this hypothesis, thus ratifying general relativity.
 
Furthermore, 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.2)
 
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 center 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 behavior 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] 
Moreover, 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.  
 
  • Genesis 1:1 describes God's creation of the entire universe
    • Sources such as Bible Study Tools, Bible Studies, Blue Letter Bible, Bible Ref, Bible Hub, Emerging Scholar and Jehovah's Witness all support this notion. 
P2: The universe is uncaused

C: God does not exist
 
P1: P --> Q
P2: Q
C: P
C from P1 and P2, Modus Pones.

IF the universe wasn't caused, THEN there wasn't a causer.

==

Contention 2: The anti ontological argument 

P1. The creation of the man is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. 
  • True because Fauxlaw agrees
    • 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
  • 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. 
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 mankind while not existing. 
 
P5. An existing God would not be greatest conceivable creator, as an even more incredible creator would be a God which did not exist
 
C1. God does not exist.

In case my opponent is unable to digest the prior, consider the following supplementary explanation;

  •  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.
==

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 sans the inclusion of God is deemed a priori most likely.
      • Thus, the resolution is upheld as the contrapositive would dictate if the theory not including God is likely, then it would logically entail that the theory including God is unlikely.
        • Take note that the razor refers to ontological commitments not the number of characters in an argument. I am aware that my opponent loves to assert that "PRO has used 7 arguments while CON has used one that means the razor asserts that PRO is wrong", to which I am sure voters will see it completely incorrect. I aptly reply, if this is how the razor works, I'll just submit a round with the words "no". After all, you can't get much less then 0 arguments and 0 rebuttals!
==

Contention IV: Animal suffering

Terms  

  • Evil (E
  • Good (G)
    • morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious:
  • Gratuitous evil (GE)
    • Evil that serves no God-justifying good.
  • God-justifying good (GJG)
    • A GSG for E only applies if 
      • (i) G could not have been secured without permitting either E or some other evils equivalent to or worse than e,
        • i.e. A GSG can allow for some E, only if the ultimate G is a net positive.
      • (ii) is sufficiently outweighing of E
        • i.e. G is a positive good sufficiently valuable to outweigh the disvalue of E. 
          • An example is punishment. Punishment is unpleasant, however, if employed correctly, contributes to a net positive in G
      • (iii) it is within God's rights to permit E
Thus consider the following;

  • P1. If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils. 
  • P2. There are gratuitous evils in the world. 
  • C1. God does not exist.
The first premise is true by virtue of truism. By definition, a GE is a type of E of which creates no G. A GE does not lead to virtue, does not teach a lesson, and is completely unjust. A GE definitionally cannot be cannot be justified by "free will" or "compensation in a latter life", for it would then be a GJG. By definition, a GE is inexcusably immoral. Thus, as God is omnibenevolent (all loving) he would not allow gratuitous evil to occur. 

The second premise is also true. Consider circumstances of which wild animals are often subjected to. Let's evaluate the three scenarios in more depth. 

 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. 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.
  • 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. 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. 
These are all examples of GE. If a koala get's burnt to death in an Australian forest, this is in no way "just". There is no "lesson learned" or "goodness gained" thus it is inexcusably immoral

The conclusion therefore follows, as both premises are true. Thus, God does not exist. 

==

Conclusion 

I have provided 5 arguments (including the semantic one), all of which support the resolution. As per the distribution of the burden of proof, even if all my contentions are successfully addressed, my opponent still needs to prove that the Christian God exists beyond reasonable doubt.
Con
Resolved: The Christian God of the Bible likely does not exist
 
I Observation/Argument: Key words of the Resolution as will be applied by Con
 
I.a First, I will point out that Pro’s Definitions of  God, Likely, and  Exist are commonly accepted, but perhaps not serving Pro’s purpose. 
 
I.a.1  God is defined as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being as described by Pro. I will argue that, by definition, these extremes do not always apply, and yet it is probable that God remains an extant God. 
 
I.a.1.A  As long as precision is to be maintained, I will note, for the record, that of the four words Pro uses to define “God,” only one of them actually appears in any English version of the Bible as listed in https://biblehub.com/revelation/19-6.htm.   That one example is “omnipotent,” appearing in Rev. 19: 6. That word has an alternative, “Almighty,” an acceptable alternative, appearing in another 8 Bible references.[1]  As for the other three words, not a single reference of the specific words used by Pro in Description actually appear in any verse of the Bible; Old or New Testament, according to the listed English versions as noted for reference [1]. Therefore, I request that Pro offer his sources for these definitions since Pro is using these definitions as properties of existence. I do not accept Pro’s opinions on the matter, particularly in a negative application.
 
I.a.1.B  Pro alleges that God is omnipotent, and infers by that designation that God always acts by omnipotence; i.e., he does not use measured power even on occasions when measured [lesser power than needed] is sufficient. See I.a.1, above. In other words, according to Pro, there is no rheostat, so to speak, employed by God’s power; it is always full-throttle.
 
I.a.1.C I will demonstrate why Pro is wrong by a simple demonstration from Genesis and its description of creation; of man, in particular. Pro may argue that God could have, perhaps should have created man, and other creatures, as a perfect beings, who would, therefore, never commit sin or cause suffering. This would be evidence of God’s omnipotence, after all, at least by Pro’s observance of that full-throttle power. We would all be better off as such, it is argued. Perhaps, but the notion is faulty out of the chute: God created man, and everything else, in an imperfect state, thus allowing temptation, but more important, allowing man’s free agency to choose between good and evil, and learn thereby, the difference, and the preference for good. The experience in the Garden of Eden, as recorded in Genesis, is sufficient evidence:[2]
 
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.”
 
I.a.1.D Therefore, our creation was imperfect for a purpose; to allow our free agency to choose good or evil, and the consequences thereof. Thus, Pro’s full-throttle-power trip is a fallacy. Just because God is omnipotent does not mean he must always act omnipotently. There are clearly no rules in the matter of the use of any omni-word as used by Pro, according to any biblical reference, even for perfect people, and far be it from mortals to expect there are such rules. 
 
I.a.1.E  The biblical Genesis account actually describes two creations; one in Genesis 1, and the other in Genesis 2 and 3. Some biblical scholars resolve this by declaring two differing authors, and there is even a classic Hebrew poetic style obvious in the two descriptions: parallelism, and, in this instance, reverse parallelism.[3]. Without getting into the weeds, this style uses similar words and phrases, and reverses them in the two separate sequences. It is not exact, but the pattern is definitely there. Why?
 
I.a.1.E.i   One scholar assigns the following reason:  “Though both narratives commence with the same word pair, they place the terms in the opposite order. Perhaps an editor who wanted the first account to depict a ‘heavenly’ creation and the second an ‘earthly’ creation reversed the superscription”[4]    A spiritual creation, first, then a physical, mortal creation to house all spiritual creations in a mortal coil. After all, Jesus, himself, was born to a mortal woman, Mary, lived as a mortal, was crucified, died, and rose again on the third day from his death, resurrecting as a physically embodied immortal which hundreds subsequently witnessed according to the biblical record. Thus, is the biblical Christian God an objective reality, matching Pro’s definition of  “exist.”  Occam’s razor, demanding the most simple explanation, would depict God, the Father, as the same physically-endowed immortal Personage; also a resurrected being.
Moving on:

I.a.2  Likely is defined by Pro as a  “probability;”  therefore that term applies to the Resolution. I will argue for probability, since, as defined by Pro as synonymous, though they are not, I will demonstrate Pro’s flaw in defining  likely as such.
 
I.a.3  Exist, as defined, is the evidence of objective being or reality. I have demonstrated just above how the Christian God is objectively real, a being of objective substance.
 
I.b  Bible and  Christian  are not defined keywords of Pro’s Resolution, yet are used in significance, or I presume Pro would not have used them in the Resolution. I assert the following:
 
I.b.1 Bible,  as in the Holy Bible,is a volume recognized as holy writ by Christians, and at least portions of it by others; mostly those adherents to Judaism.  It is acknowledged, therefore, by Pro, and, since there is no prohibition of use of the Bible as referenced source material, it will be used by Con for that purpose.
 
I.b.2  Christian:  Referring to the ubiquitous faith of adherents to Christ, who is worshipped by Christians around the world. By Pro’s own commentary in the Resolution and Description, this is, in probability, a god who may be perceived having differing attributes, but, nevertheless, is worshipped as the deity of reverence by Christians. Let us, however, recognize [and therefore, by a sideline issue, note still another flaw of the Resolution] that the Holy Bible, in fact, has reference to not just one god, but to three deities whom Christians worship, God the Father, and his “only begotten son”[5]  [in the flesh, as noted by definition of the term, ‘beget’],[6]  Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, as represented most distinctly by the event of the baptism of Jesus Christ:
 
And Jesus,when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of Goddescending like a dove, and lighting upon him:   And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”[7]
 
I.c By the numbers, as of 2020, there are, by virtue of that universal reverence as noted in R1, I.b.2, above, 2.52B Christians in the world; 32.3% of the world’s total population of 7.795B.[8].  By contrast, world-counted atheists by the same source count as 147.3M advocates.[9]  Agnostics add 731.4M adherents, for a grand total of 878.7M people who are either convinced, or lean toward Pro’s perspective, consisting of less than 0.0128% of the world’s total population.[10]
 
I.d Therefore, just by count of adherents to either side of Pro’s Resolution, adherents to the belief that the Christian God of the Bible probably exists number far higher than adherents to Pro’s assertion. Let us recall that Pro initiated the Resolution, and I have accepted the Resolution as designated. I am, therefore, at liberty to use the statistical probability Pro proposes against his Resolution.
 
I.d I recognize that adherents to either contention do not prove the Resolution as true or false, but, by the Resolution language, which proposes a statistical measure, i.e., likelihood, or probability, and not by its language, an absolute declaration of whether or not the Christian God of the Bible exists, who is doing the measuring must have the opportunity to weigh-in by their opinion. That opinion is decidedly on the side of probability that the Christian God of the Bible exists.
 
I.d.1 By statistical probability, that is a 99.987% confidence interval, or level; higher than the demand of 6s[six sigma], that is, confidence that is well within the acceptable margin of error of  ±3sigma, or 99.7%[11]    These statistics cannot be manipulated by Pro in any way. Therefore, the Resolution fails.
 
II Observations: Pro’s wrenches in the works
 
II.a In view of the above, R1, I, let us explore Pro’s first thrown wrench in the works; the Definition’s   “Interpreted Resolution,”  which I ask Pro to explain, because it’s statement runs afoul of the Resolution, as stated, i.e., the  Interpreted Resolution,  is an absolute statement, not a statistical measure:  “The God of the Christian bible does not exist.” I read the Resolution as given, specifically since Pro has rendered “likely”  as a keyword worthy of definition, which takes the Resolution out of the absolute and is retained within a probability statement. The  “Interpreted Resolution,”  is, therefore, null and void.
 
II.b Also, Pro’s second thrown wrench is Rule #7, which stipulates:  “Fauxlaw cannot participate.” Should Pro attempt my removal by Mod action, let me assure:  
 
1. According to Voting Policy,  “…special rules…   are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested.”  Consider these points, 1 & 2, as said challenge, within the debate, by Con. Note, that Pro, in spite of the rule, has entered a first round; tacit acceptance of the debate to proceed.
 
2.I am not that member, “Fauxlaw.” That member does not exist. I depend on exact representation. My membership profile clearly indicates I am “fauxlaw;” [lowercase], whether or not beginning a sentence.  Further, I claim rule 6 is violated by rule 7 in that the sum total of rule 7 is a kritik. It is an attempted statement against me, personally, as Pro incorrectly identifies me, having naught to do with the debate, and, therefore, fits the description of a kritik.
 
II.b.1 It would appear, though I place no credence on Comments associated with this debate [and I urge voters to consider what occurs only within the corners of the debate rounds, including Pro’s Resolution and Description] that Pro has decided to toss Rule #7 from consideration. Let the rounds determine for certain.
 
III Argument: Existence of the Christian God of the Bible, by the Bible itself
 
III.a The Holy Bible, Both Old and New Testaments, contains the words, “God,” “Christ/Jesus,”  “Lord,”  and  “Messiah” a grand total of 13,375 occasions [by mention of just the words as quoted].[12]  As all these words are synonymous with the generic offering by Pro of “the Christian God of the Bible,” I assert that the book, itself, is, as it is called, a binary testament of that Personage, specifically. 
 
III.b By comparison, it mentions, for example,  “Joe Biden,”  exactly zero times. Thus, we can conclude it is not a volume of testament to that man. The relevant book of the Resolution, therefore, affirms the Resolution as false. 32% of the world’s population agrees.[13]   Finally, no other religion of the world has a higher percentage of adherents as Christians. Islam, the next largest religious group, numbers 24.9% of the world’s population.[14]
 
III.c Again, Pro could rebut that these numbers prove nothing. Let's recall, however, that “proof” is relative; we depend on probability in this debate, by Pro’s own Resolution, not an absolute. Let probability have its say:  While 32% is not a majority of the world’s population, it represents the largest single plurality of any “religious” group, particularly atheists/agnostics, whose dismal percentage of plurality is given above, R1, I.c.
 
IV. Argument: Existence of the Christian God of the Bible, by Science
 
IV.a   Speciation:   The first chapters of Genesis, of the O.T., describe the creation of “heaven and earth,” including all the plants and animals populating the Earth.  There are, by one estimate, a current biodiversity of 8.7M species on Earth.[15]  That counts all specified species of plants and animals. One similarity that removes the idea of the randomness of species is that all 8.7M, and, therefore, every single living organism on Earth [many more than 8.7M], use the same universal genetic code, DNA, using the same four amino acids as base pairs: A, T, & C, G.[16]
 
IV.b  The DNA molecule is literally encoding information into alphabetic or digital form. And that’s a hugely significant discovery,   [by Dr. Francis Crick]  because what we know from experience is that information always comes from an intelligence, whether we’re talking about hieroglyphic inscription or a paragraph in a book or a headline in a newspaper. If we trace information back to its source, we always come to a mind, not a material process. So the discovery that DNA codes information in a digital form points decisively back to a prior intelligence.”[17]  That intelligence would be God, and not a mindless universe, and DNA information is evidence of his existence, and overall creative design of living entities on Earth.
 
IV.b.1  That evolution is also demonstrated to occur by scientific observation, using the same DNA sequencing, is evidence that the creative, omnipotent power of God [as Pro insists, by definition, he is] includes the ability of design of species adaptation to environment, the which Genesis[18]  teaches was created prior to living organisms, by use of diversification of DNA sequence information. This is undeniable  science, not just religious  faith, which word has yet to be used but this once in any of this evidentiary presentation.
 
IV.b.1 Therefore, the Resolution is false.
 
V Argument: “Natural theology;” Existence vs. Essence
 
V.a When Pro claims  “the Christian God of the Bible likely does not exist,”   he is really confusing “essence” for “existence.”  Another Resolution fallacy, but we’ll let that fault be ignored. However, it is not merely an esoteric distinction, to wit:
 
V.a.1  Existence is: “God exists.”  It is evidence-based, and we’ll see why.
 
V.a.2  Essence is: “God is omnipotent.” It is descriptive of an attribute, but does not show evidence, logic, or inference of God’s existence. Therefore, describing essence, alone,  to wit,  “God is…  omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent…” as Pro defines “God,” is descriptive of essence and not existence.[19]
 
V.a.3 Existence is not a property. The sense that “God exists” is not the same kind of claim as “God is omnipotent.”   “Existence is prior to any and all categories… God’s existence is, and must be, provable via ordinary methods of science, by a pattern of evidence-logic-inference. God’s existence cannot be proven by mere logic or reason alone.”[20]  I infer by this quote that neither God’s non-existence, nor non-essence can be demonstrated just by likelihood via essence, alone. Therefore, the Resolution fails.
 
VI Rebuttal: Pro R1: Another irrelevant essay
 
V.a Pro is fond of the irrelevant essay. In R1, Pro offers a 2,400-word essay on a matter with several cited references, but irrelevant to the Resolution, and on which a Mod has already rendered judgment relative to Pro’s essay subject. I suggest following the Mod’s advice. Let’s move on.
 
VI Rebuttal: Pro R1: Still another irrelevant essay: onus probundi
 
VI.a Pro’s argument already rebutted by my R1, Section V, above, had naught to do with the Resolution. Pro’s following argument does little better; a Latin lesson. Well, the most important “modern” language into which books of the Bible were translated from Hebrew and Greek was into Latin [though it was not the first – that privilege apparently belongs to Aramaic; the  lingua franca  of the common man in the beginning 1st  century period],[21]   so I’ll indulge.
 
VI.b Pro launches a discussion [another essay, this one > 3,000 words] of theism vs. atheism, citing several sources, and generally discussing  “belief” vs.  “non-belief” in a deity, as absolutes, rather than the Resolution’s keywords:  “likely,”  and  “exist,”  or not. Therefore, Pro’s devotion to his rules, as demonstrated by these two essays, is of greater importance, apparently, than to the Resolution. Caveat lector.
 
VI.c Pro offers a commentary on  onus probundi  [burden of proof], citing, 
“…the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.”   The one making the claim [the Resolution] is Pro, and his Resolution challenges the status quo by simple reference to my argument above, R1, I.c, which explains a 32% preference of the world’s population to a belief in the Christian God, therefore, a  status quo,  as opposed to a minimal 0.013% who favor atheism/agnosticism.
 
VI.c To emphasize his point, Pro offers  Hitchen’s Razor,   [Christopher Hitchens, well known as an atheist proponent], who said, according to Pro,  "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." In other words, since it is a burden on Pro to demonstrate evidence that  the Christian God of the Bible likely does not exist,  if that evidence is lacking, I, the opposing member of this debate, need not offer evidence to the contrary.
 
VI.c.1 Hitchen’s, to me, and Pro, as well, are wrong. I will offer rebuttal to that very point, as well as to Pro’s Resolution. First, I refer back to R1, II.b, regarding Pro’s rules.
 
VI.c.2 Relative to the Resolution, I refer to my arguments, above, R1, III, IV, V as pre-rebuttals to Pro’s  onus probundi, and Hitchen’s Razor arguments.
 
VII Rebuttal: Pro’s R1: Contention I: Anti-Kalam Argument
 
VII.a Pro predicates an anti-Kalam argument, with a Kalam argument, as if we are unaware of the latter. Why not simplify and just propose a created Pro argument, and justify that?  This looks like trying to add vanilla flavoring to a cookie recipe by adding vanilla extract when just adding vanilla beans scraped from the bean pod would be sufficient, and more intensely flavorful. No, we must muddle through:
 
VII.a.1 A Kalam argument syllogism, which is demonstrated by simple analysis of P1:
“Whatever begins to exist has a cause to exist” If Pro is really presenting an anit-Kalam argument, we must conclude that the universe did not  begin to exist. Genesis 1: 1 is not descriptive of the entire universe, as Pro alleges, but merely  “heaven and earth,”  which did begin to exist as described biblically.[22]
 
VII.a.1.A  We know this by virtue of the biblical description of a more localized grouping of the “greater light” [the Sun], the “lesser light” [the Moon], which were created for use as  “for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years”[23]  as created on the fourth “day.”  The universe at large is not used at all for these purposes.
 
VII.a.2 A Kalam argument syllogism, which is disproven by simple analysis of P2: “The universe began to exist.” If Pro is really presenting an anit-Kalam argument, we must conclude that the universe  did not  begin to exist. Therefore, it always has existed.
 
VII.a.3 If any one, or more propositions of a syllogism are not true, the conclusion is not logical, and fails.  Since Pro’s argument is opposed [“anti-”], these two propositions as stated do not support a contrary argument. Pro’s anti-Kalam argument must render a syllogism of a negative nature.
 
VII.b Pro then wanders into a menagerie of A-theory of time, B-theory of time, general and special theories of relativity, Einstein, Marina Cortez, chunks of cement, retrocausality, none of which makes a single mention of God, let alone his non-existent, or existent condition. One must ask, therefore, if supporting evidence of the likelihood of the biblical Christian God’s non-existence as is required by Hitchen’s razor, if it has, indeed been offered by the menagerie. No, it has not.
 
VII.b.1 I repeat, therefore [from VI.c, above], “…if that evidence is lacking, I, the opposing member of this debate, need not offer evidence to the contrary.”  The Resolution, therefore fails, particularly because I have offered rebuttal against Pro’s menagerie, anyway.
 
VIII Rebuttal: Pro R1: The anti-ontological argument
 
VIII.a This will be an easier exercise than Section VII. Pro, again, offers a syllogism, but P1 is flawed:  The creation of the man is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.”  Fundamentally, I have no problem with the proposal. However, Pro’s justification for it is seriously flawed. He says it is, True because Fauxlaw agrees.  
 
VIII.a.1 Call to points of order: 
 
1.    Who is “Fauxlaw?”
2.     When and where has “Fauxlaw” agreed to it?
 
As to point 1: According to my R1, II.b – 2, “Fauxlaw” does not exist.
 
As to point 2: So far, in my R1 round of this debate, if one alleges that the party in question is me, I have not said “I agree” to Pro’s P1 of his anti-ontological argument. Pro concludes this argument by the same allegation, that this P1 is agreeable to Pro’s “opponent;   which, in this debate, by Pro’s launch of R1, is me. So, who did agree, if anyone, of consequence? This is apparently reference to some outside material, both outside the four corners of this debate [by its uniquely given debate number by debateart.com], or any cited outside reference at all. Such outside references should lead voters to avoid using such sources as acceptable sourcing in support of arguments per the Voting Policy. 
 
VIII.b Therefore, regardless of what else is said by Pro supported by a failed syllogism of five propositions, as this one fails just by P1, according to syllogistic rules, it is not true, therefore, it is not evidence. Therefore, the Resolution fails on this anti-ontological syllogism.
 
IX Rebuttal: Pro’s R1: Occam’s Razor
 
IX.a Pro begins the Occam’s razor argument with:    “The principle  [of the law of parsimony]  deems a theory most likely if it has the least ontological commitments when compared with other theories.”   Since we have just debunked anti-ontological theory above, Section VIII, thus indicating Pro disagrees with ontological argument, it follows that this law of parsimony argument does not fly, either, as being most unlikely. Pro alleges it, himself. The Resolution fails.
 
X Rebuttal: Pro’s R1: Animal suffering
 
X.a I will refer to my argument, Section I.a.1.C above, dealing with the reasons why creation of all creatures was, by design, a creation of imperfect creatures, not perfect creatures. Therefore, creature suffering was going to be a part of existence, and is not a valid argument of God’s non-existence due to the belief that God’s omnipotence would prevent such suffering. See section I.a.1.B & I.a.1.C, above. There is another plan already in place to answer that suffering, to be discussed in R2.
 
I conclude a successful rebuttal of all Pro arguments of R1, plus a successful presentation of arguments supporting my BoP contrary to the Resolution:  The Christian God of the Bible likely exists.
 
Pass R2 to Pro.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 


[2]Holy Bible, Genesis 2; 16, 17
[5]Holy Bible, John 3: 16
[7]Holy Bible, Matthew 3: 16, 17
[9]ibid
[10]ibid
[18]Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 11-13, 20-31
[20]ibid
[22]Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 1
[23]Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 14

Round 2
Pro
Preliminary I: Rules

My opponent drops all 6 syllogisms affirming this contention, thus I extend them all. Instead of addressing the syllogisms, they opt to counterproductively repeat faulty comments of which have already been demonstrated to be be incorrect. 

My membership profile clearly indicates I am “fauxlaw;” [lowercase], whether or not beginning a sentence.  
Fauxlaw, you are not above the English language. Words at the beginning of the sentence begin with a capital letter. There are no exceptions to this rule. Consider, for example, the word the. In the middle of the sentence, a capital need not be applied, in fact, a capitalisation would be a violation of basic sentence construction. The word, however, does require a capital letter at the beginning of the sentence, regardless of whether the word is a pronoun. Now in this situation, where the word Fauxlaw is both a proper noun (A proper noun is a specific (i.e., not generic) name for a particular person, place, or thing. Proper nouns are always capitalized in English, no matter where they fall in a sentence) and at the beginning of a sentence, it would be a grammatical abomination to leave the letter F lowercase. 

My opponent then quotes Ragnar's take on the issue. 
 
“…special rules…   are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested.”  Consider these points, 1 & 2, as said challenge
Of course, I never intended for moderation action to be initiated, I was always appealing to the voters. In this situation, it is wise to apply to reasonable person test

In law, a reasonable person... is a hypothetical person of legal fiction crafted by the courts and communicated through case law and jury instructions... for a party to seek evidence from actual people in order to establish how the reasonable man would have acted or what he would have foreseen... This person's character and care conduct under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice

I now appeal to the reasonable voters. Would you, as a person of whom has common sense, accept a debate of which your name (names are proper nouns thus require capitalisation) is in the description, followed by the words cannot participate. The answer is clear. 

I suggest following the Mod’s advice. Let’s move on.
Again, Ragnar only stated that moderators will not enforce the rules of the debate, and that this is up to voters. I trust that voters will be able to apply to reasonable persons test and penalise my opponent accordingly. 

Note, that Pro, in spite of the rule, has entered a first round; tacit acceptance of the debate to proceed.
Note, that CON, in spite of the rule, has entered a first round; tacit acceptance of rules 6-7 and their relevant penalty. 

It is quite laughable that my opponent has the audacity to recycle a statement made in the comments of which they know is faulty. Why use an argument which you know will lead you to stating that you "strike out". 

Fauxlaw: #5 My membership profile clearly indicates I am “fauxlaw," (note that this is exactly the same statement they use as a "rebuttal" to my syllogisms" 

Bones: #6 Yes, but I didn’t make the name Fauxlaw capital because it’s your name, I made it capital because it was the first letter of the sentence.

Fauxlaw: #11 making a final preliminary comment, the name is fauxlaw [lowercase]

Bones: #13 Regardless of what ur name is, the word fauxlaw was at the start of the sentence and thus requires a capital letter.

Fauxlaw: #14 selective adherence to grammar rules negates argument. "ur" is not grammatical, either

Bones: #15 Fauxlaw commits a Tu quoque fallacy. (I highly recommend voters to read this comment section, not for voting purposes, but for some pure comedy. Trust me, it's an absolute knee slapper.) 

Fauxlaw: #16 Congratulations to fauxlaw, who has struck out, and is, therefore, out of competition in Comments during this debate

Funnily enough, unbeknownst to my opponent, this issue is serious enough to perhaps lead to a possible ban. The CoC clearly states 

and to judge the situation 

moderators retain the authority to interpret and apply all policies in the best interests of the site and users therein. In most cases, a “reasonable person” standard will be utilized.
Unless you can some how demonstrate that a reasonable person would read a rule authored by someone who politely want's you to stay away, stating "[insert your name cannot participate" and still participate, then it's sayōnara for you.

==

Preliminary: Burden of proof


[Bones is] one making the claim [the Resolution] is Pro, and his Resolution challenges the status quo by simple reference to my argument above, R1, I.c, which explains a 32% preference of the world’s population to a belief in the Christian God, therefore, a  status quo,  as opposed to a minimal 0.013% who favor atheism/agnosticism.
Unfortunately, this demonstrates my opponents lack of understanding the burden of proof and how it operates. The truth of the matter is that the theist’s claim of a supernatural god with magical powers is an extraordinary claim and requires substantial evidence if it is to be logically believed. The burden of proof is on the theists. 
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. 
Moreover, my opponent does not understand what the status quo means. They are under the impression that the view of which has the largest adherents is the "status quo". Consider once again my garden fairy example. If 80 percent of the world believed and worshiped these undetectable fairies, would it become the non-believes duty to disapprove these fairies? Clearly, regardless of how popular a belief is, the one who asserts a belief is the one who has the justify the belief. 

To leave with a quote 

“Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”

- Douglas Adams

==

Rebuttal of the O/A1

To use one of my opponents favourite sayings, CON has dedicated >9000 characters to an irrelevant essay. Whilst all of it's garble can be hitchslapped by my observation that it is a semantical kritik of which is a direct violation to rule 6, it is worth considering what Ragnar has to say on this matter. 

Before I point at exactly where the kritik comes in, I'll chronologically respond to argument section first. 

CON's makes several arguments in this first section. They assert that 

  1. Even though God posses the 4 omni's, he does not always need to act to his maximum. 
  2. Occam's razor "would depict God, the Father, as the same physically-endowed immortal Personage; also a resurrected being"
  3. As there are proportionately more theists than atheists or agnostics, and as resolution proposes a statistical measure, i.e., likelihood and not by its language, an absolute declaration of whether or not the Christian God of the Bible exists, this must mean that the God of the Christian bible likely exists. 
Number 1 is false. Take, for example, the term omnibenevolent, which is, to be "all-loving, or infinitely good". To be infinitely good is to be so good that a being with greater goodness cannot be conceived. Obviously, it is possible to imagine a "gooder" God than one who "take's breaks from the job" and ignores suffering animal on the basis that he should be able to exercise his "free will". 

Likewise, 2 is also false, and riddled with so many fallacies, it is easier to find an error than a truth. Consider, for example, just the number of presumptions my opponent makes in just two sentences. 

"After all, Jesus, himself"
  • Assuming Jesus exists. 
"was born to a mortal woman"
  • Assuming his mother exists.
"Mary, lived as a mortal"
  • Assuming Mary exists 
"was crucified"
  • x1 
"died"
  • x2
"rose again"
  • x3
"on the third day from his death"
  • Assuming Jesus exists x2
"resurrecting"
  • x3 
"thus, is the biblical Christian God an objective reality, matching Pro’s definition of  “exist.” 
  • How my opponent came to this conclusion is completely unknown to me, thus I cannot respond. 
Number 3 is facilitated by my opponents complaint of the term likely.

Fauxlaw: "Likely is defined by Pro as a  “probability;”  therefore that term applies to the Resolution. I will argue for probability". Personally, I do not see the issue.
  • After all, if I prove that God does not exist for certain, then the probability that God does not exist is greater than him existing. My opponents primary concern is the following
Fauxlaw: "I recognize that adherents to either contention do not prove the Resolution as true or false, but ,by the Resolution language, which proposes a statistical measure, i.e., likelihood, or probability, and not by its language, an absolute declaration of whether or not the Christian God of the Bible exists, who is doing the measuring must have the opportunity to weigh-in by their opinion"
  • Clearly, the above sufficiently replies to this complaint. Regardless of whether I can prove that God 100%, 80% or 60% doesn't exist, as long as I can show that this number is larger than 50 percent i.e more likely. 
    • Moreover, this is clearly a semantic Kritik. The following is an example provided by Ragnar. 
      • Semantic (AKA “Lawyering”)
        • “I know many married bachelors: Bachelors of Art, Science and Engineering” 
          • Obviously, you are not debating in the intended manner, you are attempting to find cracks and crevasses in my resolution. 
          • Moreover, rule 6 clearly states
            • "No Kritiks"
            • "A breach in rules 6-8 should result an instant loss"
    • Thus I form the following syllogism 
      • p1. Kritiks result an instant loss. 
        • Stated in the description and tacitly accepted upon my opponents acceptance of this debate. 
      • p2. Fauxlaw has used a kritik. 
        • Truism. 
      • c1. Fauxlaw's action result in an instant loss. 
==

Rebuttal/Argument: Existence of the Christian God of the Bible, by the Bible itself

The relevant book of the Resolution [the bible], therefore, affirms the Resolution as false. 32% of the world’s population agrees.
First off, 32% is not "likely", it is more close to "have a probability of occurring". 

Second off, consider what my opponent is asserting. They assert that IF a large number of people adhere to X, THEN X is likely to be true. By the same token, homosexuality is also wrong, as in the United States, the majority of people (57 percent) believe that preventing homosexuals from marrying is a "moral" imperative. Who needs facts, evidence and science when you can gather some sheep and build up a mob? 

Second off, my opponent's argument is predicated on the assumption that the bible is accurate. I invite them to consider the following syllogism.

  • 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: God's existence, through science 

we know from experience is that information always comes from an intelligence
Incorrect. Information only requires an interpreter to exist. It does not require intelligent life to send. Take for example, the 1976 Viking Mars mission. The camera aboard took an image of the red planets surface, revealing a rock structure which resembled a humanoid face. NASA revealed the photo to the public and many understood it as a sign for intelligent life sending a message to humans. However, with renewed technology, the Mars Global Surveyor took a photo of the same rock structure in 1998 and revealed the the "humanoid face" was really a simply rock structure. This is just one example of "information" being communicated by nonintelligent life. 

What about the Jocelyn Bell's discovery of the "little green men" pulse? Humans certainly understood that as a message form extra-terrestrial life, until science allowed them to come to the conclusion that the "messages" were actually a result of rapidly rotating neutron stars. This is certainly an example of nature giving us a "message". 

That intelligence would be God, and not a mindless universe, and DNA information is evidence of his existence, and overall creative design of living entities on Earth.
How do you know that it is the Christian God of the bible? How do you know that this being possess the omni's? How do you know this being listen's to prayers? How do you know that this isn't Allah's creation? Even if you have proved that genetic codes require a coder (the classic watch maker analogy) that would only prove that there is a being who wrote a code. It would not prove that he still exists or that he is even the God that you are praying to. To officialise this offence; 

==

Rebuttal: Existence vs. Essence

V.a.1  Existence is: “God exists.”  It is evidence-based, and we’ll see why.
 
V.a.2  Essence is: “God is omnipotent.”
I see no issue. Your job is to prove that the God of which is described in the Christian bible exists. If God exists, then his essence also exists. To say otherwise would be like me asserting that the claim "Bones exists" is different to "Bones characteristics (kindness rudeness etc) exist". Obviously, if I exist, then my characteristics also exist. I wouldn't be me without my personality. 

The sense that “God exists is not the same kind of claim as “God is omnipotent.”
I never said they were the same. Take for example, person X. X is a very kind person who always gives to charity. In fact, he is so kind that the Fox News granted him an interview (don't ask why). In the interview, it is clear that X's kindness is seen as a key part of who he is.

However, Y comes along and disputes this case. They set up a debate with the resolution "RESOLVED: X as described on Fox News does not exist". Obviously, for Y to win, they must prove that X both they exist "as described on Fox News". 

An inspection of the resolution of this debate shows that the same issue applies. Resolved: The God of the Christian bible likely does not exist.
 
Existence is not a property.
Exist - have objective reality or being

God’s existence cannot be proven by mere logic or reason alone.
Well then that makes your job of proving that God exists a tad bit difficult. Unfortunately, the rest of us operate on planet Earth, where logic and reasoning are the domain for all intelligible discussion. 

==

Affirmation: Anti-Kalam

My opponent takes issue with the second premise of the Kalam syllogism (why don't they rebut the anti-Kalam? Who knows?). Funnily enough, they attack the conclusion of which it arrives at, and not the reasoning behind it. This is commonly known as being ignorant. The second premise of the classical Kalam argument is 

The universe began to exist
and is synonymous with the Anti-Kalam's first premise. 

  • Genesis 1:1 describes God's creation of the entire universe
    • Sources such as Bible Study Tools, Bible Studies, Blue Letter Bible, Bible Ref, Bible Hub, Emerging Scholar and Jehovah's Witness all support this notion. 
To further expand the syllogism, consider the following. 

P1. If God exists, then God created the entire universe 
  • “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” Colossians 1:16
    • Key words. Invisible. All things were created through him.
  • "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 
  • The term "the heaven and the earth" are the normal phrases in the Bible for the universe. Deuteronomy 32:1; Psalm 148:13; Isaiah 2
P2: The universe is uncaused
  • Dropped. 

C: God does not exist

==

Affirmation: Anti-ontological

I was very disappointed when reading this rebuttals, if you can even call it that. My opponent takes issue with the first premise being 

The creation of the man is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
backed up by my opponents statement 

made previously. Clearly, a reasonable person will be able to see my kindness, in that I modify the premise of my argument just for the sake of a productive and harmonious discussion. Moreover, any sensible person will see that the first premise is not even crucial to the syllogism. It is possible to insert any creation which my opponent believes is the most marvellous for the syllogism to work. Instead my opponents opts to play stupid. Therefore, I must spoon-feed this syllogism once more. Consider the following; 

P1. According
to the bible, creation of the man is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. 
  • This is true according to the bible.  
P2. It is more impressive to complete act X whilst you are handicapped than when you are completely able
  • 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. 
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 mankind while not existing. 
 
P5. An existing God would not be greatest conceivable creator, as an even more incredible creator would be a God which did not exist
 
C1. God does not exist.
Of course, my opponent drop all other premises because they are far to formidable. Knowing Fauxlaw, we won't get another response to the entirely of this syllogism again, which is a pity. Please prove me wrong, Faux. 

==

Affirmation: Occam's Razor 

 Since we have just debunked anti-ontological theory above, Section VIII, thus indicating Pro disagrees with ontological argument, it follows that this law of parsimony argument does not fly, either, as being most unlikely. Pro alleges it, himself.
Buddy, just because the anti-ontological argument and the phrase "ontological commitment" share a common word, this doesn't mean that they are the same argument. Once again, I must repeat this short but powerful statement 

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: Animal suffering 

Of course, my syllogism is no where to be found. Recall; 

  • P1. If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils. 
  • P2. There are gratuitous evils in the world. 
  • C1. God does not exist.
 refer to my argument, Section I.a.1.C above...

God created man, and everything else, in an imperfect state...

allowing man’s free agency to choose between good and evil,
My opponent completely misunderstands my argument. To steel man their argument, Fauxlaw's belief is that though God is omnibenevolent, this does not mean that he needs to always act to his maximum. Right of the bat, there are multiple things wrong with this.

  1. An omnibenevolent being is a being of infinite love. This means that it is impossible for there to be a being of which loves more than God. However, in the current state of the world filled with suffering and torment, it is possible to imagine a being of which loves us more than the Christian God, that is, a God which doesn't allow for rape or murder. Consider the following syllogism 
    1. p1. If God is infinitely loving, then it is impossible to conceive of a being of which loves more than God. 
    2. p2. It is possible to conceive of a being which loves more than God. 
      1. As stated prior, it is possible to imagine a world in which people are loved more. Take, for example, rape victims. It is possible to imagine that, if there had been someone of something omnipotent which loved it, they would have spared them. 
    3. c1. God is not infinitely loving.
My opponents use of the "free will" defence has already been pre-emptively rebutted, but of course, Fauxlaw chooses to recycle it. To recall; 

GE definitionally cannot be cannot be justified by "free will" or "compensation in a latter life", for it would then be a GJG. By definition, a GE is inexcusably immoral. 
I highly recommend a re-read of my initial argument, as you have allowed many points to slide. Thus far, the problem of Animal suffering stands. 

==

I conclude a successful rebuttal of all CON's arguments, and a successful presentation of arguments supporting my BoP affirming the resolution. 
Con
Resolved: The Christian God of the Bible likely does not exist
 
I Argument: Likelihood is not even probability, let alone an absolute
 
I.a  “Likely,”   one of Pro’s Resolution keywords, is defined as   “probability.”  I will demonstrate the distinction, as noted in R1, I.a.2], and “absolute.” Pro is going to have to decide between likelihood, or absolute, for R3, else risk violation of Rule #2, to maintain definitions as accepted [which does not allow an absolute, regardless of alleged likelihood, or probability] at least, and perhaps Rule #3 by continuing to contest the stated Resolution. Rule #1 may be at risk, regardless.
 
I.a.1  The flaw of the Resolution: Pro’s choice of a keyword, is likelihood; that “The Christian god of the Bible  likely  does not exist.”   
 
I.b My argument is the Bayesian statistical method,[1]  which discusses the difference between probability and likelihood. In statistics, they are different terms.   “The distinction between probability and likelihood is fundamentally important: Probability attaches to possible results; likelihood attaches to hypotheses.”[2]  
 
I.b.1 Probability:  Suppose you predict the result of tossing a coin 10 times. [heads = God probably does not exist; tails = God probably exists] Eleven possible results exist: 0 correct predictions through 10 correct predictions. These are mutually exclusive results. There can be nothing added or subtracted.
 
I.b.1.A   According to Pro’s Resolution, there are two results: either God likely does not exist, or God likely does exist.
 
I.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. 
 
I.b.2.A  In the case of our debate, the  likelihood of the Christian God’s non-existence, or existence, is on a sliding scale, evidenced by Pro’s variable syllogisms as given in his R1, with different syllogistic propositions in each. Not to mention that Pro's syllogism conclusions are absolutes.
 
I.c  After the subjects make their predictions, we have the coin tossed, and observe the results. Let’s say the toss results in the 7 correct predictions our  first subject made.
 
I.c.1 I say: “The subject just guessed.”
Pro says: “The subject is likely clairvoyant,” by which Pro means 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 predict just under to just over half; about 4 to 6 correct predictions.
 
I.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  “likely”  is that his Resolution is just as likely to be less than mid-range as more than mid-range. This is because  likely is not tied to results.  The word Pro wanted to support his Resolution was not  likely,  but  probably.
 
I.e Pro’s Resolution fails because Pro does not argue either likelihood, or probability, but, instead, argues in an absolute: God does not exist, at all.   Every one of his failed syllogisms conclude with this absolute, a mutually exclusive outcome.   
 
II Argument: The Plan of God to end sin and suffering of all kinds
 
II.a Pro would like to limit the suffering all creatures endure in mortality by simply claiming God does not exist, or he would end all suffering. That, too, is an absolute. Pro’s argument offers no resolve to the problem of suffering, but merely acknowledges the problem exists, and assumes, without offering evidence of any kind, an alleged non-extant being would not do that. But, that is tacit admission that there is a being who would not do that, which violates Pro’s Resolution.
 
II.b Suffering exists. But, as is commonly said, unless we have a proposed solution to an obvious problem, why bring up the problem, which is already all too obvious?  Will Pro’s menagerie solve it?  It fails out of hand because it is all too easy to blame God, as if God is the total cause of everything. Except, Pro’s argument is that there is no God to take the blame. Pro is shouting into the wind. Quixotic.
 
II.b.1 Pro’s argument suffers for lack of acknowledging there already is a plan to end suffering.  Indeed, it is exemplary of the great foreknowledge of God in recognizing its necessity, and it is a good support argument for the existence of the biblical Christian God, since a plan is exemplary intelligence, and not random chance. It will not occur by a clock running in A-theory or B-theory time. Since the menagerie argues neither against, nor for God’s existence, I submit that the menagerie is off-topic, and whatever clocks it uses are, as well.
 
II.c The plan offered by God is in a short message. It has its first introduction in Genesis, so we don‘t have to wait for the advent of Christ and the New Testament to hear of it:
 
“And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”[3]
 
II.c.1 God speaks to Satan, that the effect of evil temptation spreads to all other causes of suffering for all creatures.   It is verse 15 that introduces how God will ultimately end all suffering, but that end is conditional.  God calls the solution to suffering “enmity.”  Enmity, which will be placed between Eve and Satan, and between all her seed [posterity] and Satan, will combat Satan’s evil, even when Satan will bruise Enmity’s heel, because Enmity will bruise Satan’s head.
 
II.c.2 “Enmity” is Jesus Christ, who would, in his time, and did, take on the sins and suffering imposed on all creatures, as first cause, by Satan. Satan will bruise Christ’s heel [in fact, virtually his whole person – hence the nails’ marks in his hands and feet [heels?]] by the crucifixion, but Christ will prevail over death by the atonement; by resurrection, and all life, by virtue of Christ’s atonement, will resurrect from the dead, and all life will then be free of all suffering. Of that atonement, God is the total cause; the one exception noted above. Yes, it is a future event for all who lived before Christ, and a future even for all who follow, but who’s counting other than Pro and his  A/B clocks? Death, after suffering, is merely the last enemy to be defeated, as will be Pro’s Resolution.
 
II.c.3 What is conditional about the atonement of Christ? 
 
“Who will render to every man according to his deeds:  To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:  But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,  tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil…”[4]  
 
III Rebuttal: Pro’s R2: What’s in a name?  Pro’s “legal fiction”
 
III.a Pro's issue is that “Fauxlaw” accepted a debate that “Fauxlaw” was forbidden to engage by Description’s Rule #7. Pro introduces a term with which I am very familiar, but readers may not be. It is of no consequence as it has naught to do with the Resolution, but I will close it here and now. 
 
III.b Pro’s term is “legal fiction.” It has to do with use of names; proper names, legal names. We’re just explaining for Pro a consequence he has overlooked in all this argument about “Fauxlaw.”  “Legal fiction” is about a proper, legal name, and they, by convention, have their first letters capitalized. But, what Pro ignores in all his bluster is that “fauxlaw” is not a proper name; it is an avatar, a moniker, a nickname, a handle, an alias. In my case, it isn’t as Pro has rendered it. I can render it any damn way I choose, and I recognize no other rendition.  fauxlaw is my chosen handle for this website, and lowercase is the only rendering it is given, English grammar rules, or legal fiction rules be damned. Enough.
 
IV Rebuttal: Pro R2: Rules: 5,000 words of inconsequence
 
IV.a Pro begins an essay of rules, titled as such, but offers, first, instead, a movement of nearly 5,000 characters, beginning with an allegation of my dropping six syllogisms. Syllogisms are not rules, particular when they fail. Need I remind readers? 
 
V.Rebuttal: Pro R1: Six syllogisms by Pro in R1
 
V.a  The sequence of my argument and rebuttal is mine to establish, by round, and I’ll thank Pro to keep his place and not dictate my order of presentation, Rule #1 being the only exception.
 
V.a.1 The first syllogism, with the P1:   “The word Fauxlaw is a proper noun”   is completely off-topic to the Resolution, and differs from III, above. Therefore, it needs no rebuttal other than offered above.
 
V.a.2 The second syllogism, with the P1:  “The phrase ‘Fauxlaw cannot participate’  is a sentence”  is completely off-topic to the Resolution. Therefore, same as V.a.1, above.
 
V.a.3  The third syllogism, with the P1:  “The rule ‘Fauxlaw cannot participate’ prohibits user Fauxlaw from participating”  is completely off-topic to the Resolution. Therefore, same as V.a.1, above.
 
V.a.4 The fourth syllogism, with the P1,  “The breaching of a rule results in an instant loss”   is completely off-topic to the Resolution. Therefore, it needs no rebuttal.
 
V.b Pro added a fifth syllogism with his anti-Kalam argument of R1, which was rebutted in my frame of R1, VII.a.1, which offered a common syllogism to the Kalam argument, which I noted was a curious beginning since Pro’s assertion is an anti-Kalam argument. I see no need to repeat the rebuttal contained in my R1, VII.a.1.
 
V.c Pro’s sixth syllogism offered the first argument for his anti-Kalam argument. I will respond to it now: I don’t disagree with Pro’s conclusion: The universe was uncaused. Please refer to my R1, III: Existence of the Christian God by the Bible, itself, wherein I discuss, according to the Bible, the creation [cause] of “heaven and earth.” These places do not describe the entire universe, but just a more local part of it.
 
V.d Pro miscounts, and actually offers a seventh syllogism in his R1 Conclusion, which offers, by the way, the absolute argument of God’s non-existence, contrary to, as I argued by rebuttal in my R1, the Resolution, proposing only a likelihood that God does not exist. By arguing an absolute, Pro is out of bounds relative to the Resolution. Nevertheless, I will rebut the syllogism, anyway:
 
V.d.1 Pro’s P1:  “If God exists, then God created the entire universe.”  The syllogism fails here, because, as I argued in R1, VII.a.1 and VII.a.1.A, God did not create the entire universe, and that is directly from Genesis 1: 1, 14: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.”  “And God said, 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:”
 
V.d.2  Pro can cite all the biblical experts he likes. I prefer to cite the volume, the Holy Bible, itself, as best evidence, and the above is what it says. The lights in the firmament are for the reckoning of signs and seasons, days and years of Earth, alone. The entire universe does not do that for Earth, and all Pro’s experts can be lined up, reciting Greek poetry, cheek-to-cheek, and they cannot change it. Therefore, this seventh syllogism fails. So does the Resolution.
 
VI Rebuttal: Pro’s R2: Burden of Proof of garden fairies
 
VI.a Okay, lets officially add garden fairies to the menagerie. What they’re doing, I’d leave to Pro, but that opportunity has passed. The discussion is BoP; fine. Let’s add Doug Adams, too. The more, the merrier. Pro would like me to behave as if my BoP is that God must be a magician. But, I don’t find that word in my debate vocabulary [nor in the Resolution], but then, my vocabulary does not include “Fauxlaw,” either. Not to mention, again, the matter is off-topic.
 
VII Rebuttal: Pro’s R2: “Rebuttal of the O/A1”
 
VII.a First, Pro will kindly make proper reference to my numbered sections. I do not have an “O/A1”, so it took a bit to recognize Pro has mistaken the syntax. Pro’s penchant for grammar is not applied to his own sensibilities, which I expect to be well-enough informed to recognize the difference between Arabic numerals and Roman numerals. Thank you.
 
VII.b The Pro rebuttal of “O/A1,” then, accuses an essay of 9,000 words on my part. I will also expect Pro knows the difference between words and characters, and their relative counts, since we’re such grammarians.
 
VII.c Pro rebuts on 3 points:
1.    Even though God posses the 4 omni's, he does not always need to act to his maximum.”  [What is “posses? I did not employ that… word?]
2.    “Occam's razor ‘would depict God, the Father, as the same physically-endowed immortal Personage; also a resurrected being.’”
3.    “As there are proportionately more theists than atheists or agnostics, and as resolution proposes a statistical measure, i.e., likelihood and not by its language, an absolute declaration of whether or not the Christian God of the Bible exists, this must mean that the God of the Christian bible likely exists.”
 
VII.c.1 By the numbers: #1: Pro alleges this is false, then uses omnibvenevolence as an example, accusing that God cannot be God because it is conceivable to imagine a“gooder [?]”   God than one who allows suffering, but then offers nothing by way of evidence of such a conception. Is it just because Pro says so? There’s not even a presented logical argument of his own making. Caveat lector.Meanwhile, I did offer argument, ignored, that creation had/has a purpose, i.e., 
 
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over... all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”[5]    
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”[6]
 
VII.c.1.A These verses effectively rebut Pro’s argument both by the purpose of man’s existence on Earth, and the blame game that God is ignorant of suffering. 
 
Man is made in imperfection, for, as was shown in R1, I.a.1.D, “Therefore, our creation was imperfect for a purpose; to allow our free agency to choose good or evil, and the consequences thereof,”    as shown by reference to the Holy Bible, Genesis 2: 16, 17.  This will be re-visited.
 
God is not ignorant of suffering as shown in my R1, I.a.1.C, and R1, X, as well as the argument just above, regarding God’s pre-determined plan, R2, II.
 
VII.c.2  Pro accuses by #2 that the Christian God of the Bible must be a magician, and all the plural menagerie Pro places on stage insists on it. No, the more simple argument, as demanded by Occam’s razor [simplicity, not plurality], and as demonstrated by biblical reference, and by science as demonstrated in my R1, IV, is that God is a resurrected being, a most holy human who has been through our mortal experience and not just survived it, but overcame it. He, himself, has perfectly met his charge to have dominion, even as he expects us to overcome and take our dominion over the Earth seriously, judiciously, and lovingly. God is not responsible for suffering on Earth; we are, we, by our choice to submit to Satan’s temptation to abuse our dominion by usurpation of pride, power, and possession of Earth for our own greedy purposes and not for the glory of God.
 
VII.c.2.A  Pro reasons by laborious sentence deconstruction that my argument is not sound because I assume Jesus exists, etc. No, I am merely following the likelihoodof the Resolution’s demand, using biblical references, as allowed by reference of the Holy Bible in the Resolution, as given by Pro. Pro opened the door to use of the Bible; I have walked through it, plus I have given evidence by science [R1, IV]. Just so, Pro has abandoned his likelihood argument for an absolute:  “C1. God does not exist.”  [Under Pro R2, “Affirmation: Animal Suffering.”]  This claim violates the Resolution.
 
VII.c.3  Pro accuses by #3 that by his Resolution,  “Regardless of whether I can prove that God 100%, 80% or 60% doesn't exist, as long as I can show that this number is larger than 50 percent i.e more likely.”  Regardless? Sorry, with likelihood, given my statistical sourcing[7]  on the subject, and argument presented in my R2, I.c.1 that likelihood implies a potential for being as likely below the average as above it, Pro cannot claim otherwise. Since he used “likely” and not “probable” in the Resolution, Pro is tied to that keyword, and its implications. There was method in my madness of drawing this definitional distinction that Pro ignores, let alone ignoring my rebutting the absolute argument: a 100% absolute that God does not exist. Absolute and likely are not synonymous terms, either, though Pro wishes they were, and has not demonstrated it by any evidence. It cannot now be offered in R3.
 
VIII Defense: Existence of the Christian God of the Bible, by the Bible itself
 
VIII.a Pro passes on rebuttal of my primary point: that there are numerous [over 13,000] references to the various names by which the biblical Christian God is known in the Bible, itself; a literal testament to whom this volume is “dedicated” as subject matter. Instead, Pro presses on the 32% of the world population who acknowledge the Christian God of the Bible. I did mention in the argument that Pro could present that rebuttal. But that rebuttal in no way invalidates the data. Worse, it does not support his own BoP.
 
VIII.b Instead, Pro offers yet another syllogism, by which, again, P1 fails him and his syllogism, and, therefore, the Resolution. P1 is, again, an if/then:  
 
P1:   “If a book, for whatever reason, contains contradictions or flaws, the claims that it makes should not be trusted.” 
 
VIII.b.1  Unfortunately, this if/then has a flaw in that it does not account for the potential of verifiability. I’ll remind readers to observe Pro’s own rebuttal conclusion arguing my very point:  “overlooking alternatives.”  One can determine what is flawed and what is not by doing first, what any reasonable person would do when presented with unknown information needing to be verified: Do the research. That is more than listening to others’ opinions on the matter, or expressing personal opinion:
 
1.    Select a topic
2.    Locate information
3.    Evaluate and analyze information
4.    Write, organize, communicate information
5.    Seek and cite sources
 
VIII.b.2  How does this apply to the Bible? It’s a topical work, is it not? Can it be located? Can it be read, fully, completely, then analyzed? Can notes of evaluation/analysis be written? Can a source be identified to consult? The answer to all is: Yes. Who’s the source? Perhaps we return to those 13,000 internal references for a name? Let’s consult the volume, itself:
 
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.”[8]
 
Looks an awful lot like the 5 steps, above. Go do it; it’s a better proof than an unguided opinion. This will determine if the passage, even this one, is to be trusted, or not. Therefore, as applied, this P1, as stated, is false, thus falsifying the syllogism.
 
IX Defense: Existence v. Essence
 
IX.a Pro concludes his rebuttal:  “This is just one example of "information" being communicated by nonintelligent life.”   “This” example was the camera, and resulting photograph, aboard the 1975 Mars Viking,[9]  and a subsequent camera and photo aboard the 1996 Mars Global Surveyor, which was more detailed. The photos don’t matter. The point Pro made was that these cameras were “non-intelligent life.” Really? Living cameras that are stupid? Okay…??
 
IX.b Reality check: both cameras, and the mission craft they were aboard, were conceived, designed, constructed, and launched, then activated by intelligent men and women from NASA and their various suppliers. These devices did not evolve as stupid living things. I hope that’s obvious. There is intelligence behind them, by their creators and initiators, but the cameras are, by themselves, neither intelligent nor living.
 
IX.c Pro also ignores that we know that God is the designer because we know that we did not design DNA. As my source stipulated on this matter:  “…the discovery that DNA codes information in a digital form points decisively back to a prior intelligence.”[10]   Prior, as in before there were people on Earth to design anything, even an arrow tip.
 
IX.d Note that Pro manages to ignore the introductory “Natural theology,” i.e., not man-made.
 
IX.e Further, it appears, in the end, that Pro is not rebutting this point, only that both existence and essence are tied, though entirely separate things. Yes, they are.
 
X Rebuttal: Pro R2: Anti-Kalam
 
X.a Pro is so confused by the Kalam argument, that he claims his anti-Kalam argument is the syllogism P2: “The universe began to exist,” ignoring that he has offered no anti-Kalam argument syllogism with that phrase in any proposition Pn.  His anti-Kalam syllogism P2 offered later in R1 is:
 
“P2: The A-theory of time is untrue”
 
And Pro concludes:
 
“C: The universe is uncaused”
 
X.a.1 I have no problem with either this P2, or C. But then, neither prove Pro’s Resolution, either, so, to what end are they offered? I fully agree, the universe is uncaused, at least by the Christian God. But that “heaven and earth” are caused, within the universe. I’ve said that all along, yes?
 
X.b Pro offers three biblical references in his new, anti-Kalam syllogism with P1 containing biblical references in Collosians, Isaiah, Deuteronomy, and Psalms, all of which reference  “heaven[s] and earth.”  There is no argument what Earth is; the issue with Pro is that “heaven” means “universe.” As my R2, V.d.1 & V.d.2 cites, heaven is the local star group, including the Sun and Moon for signs, seasons, days, and years. The universe at large does not do that for Earth.  Therefore, by P1, Pro’s new syllogism fails, regardless of the rest. Oh, but Pro’s P2 declares, by explanation, that I have dropped the argument. No, as I confirm above, I agree the universe is uncaused. But, of course, Pro, once again, offers an absolute, not a likely conclusion: “C: God does not exist.”
 
XI Rebuttal: Pro R2: Anti-ontological
 
XI.a Pro is disappointed by my R1 rebuttal of his anti-ontological syllogism? Fine. Be disappointed. But Pro referring to me as “stupid” crosses the line because I clearly stated in my R1 rebuttal that I did not disagree with his R1 anti-ontological syllogistic P1. I said I disagreed with his justifying R1 P2, that P1 is true “…because Fauxlaw agrees.”  THAT P2 is the proposal I disagree with. And I explained why I disagree with it, because as yet, when Pro presented his R1 anti-ontological syllogism, I had yet to say anything. Pro’s reference to my “agreement” was to a non-cited outside source. I know what source he means, but I will not cite it for him as it is a debateart.com policy violation to do so. Let Pro cite his source. Until then Pro is wrong to say I agree with him unless, within the four-corners of  this  debate, I had said so.  Details matter. As a P2 failure, the conclusion [another absolute] fails.
 
XII Rebuttal: Pro’s R2: Occam’s razor: Metaphysical naturalism
 
XII.a I’m curious about the relation between the biblical Christian God; the go-to subject of the Resolution, and metaphysical naturalism. What has one to do with the other to either prove or disprove the Resolution? Metaphysical naturalism, by Pro’s discussion of ontological commitment, does not include any divinity.[11]  That’s an absolute argument, and, therefore, on two fundamentals, outside the scope of the debate.
 
XIII Rebuttal: Pro’s R2: Animal suffering
 
XIII.a Pro claims there is no rebuttal to Pro due to lack of mention of his R2 syllogism. I refer to my R2, V.a, and my order of discussion. Enough. 
 
XIII.b Pro’s P1 stated [another if/then]: 
 
“P1: If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils.” 
 
This statement is flawed, as I represented in my R1, I.a.1.C, I.a.1.d and the biblical reference to Genesis 2: 16, 17, which gave Adam & Eve free agency to choose between good and evil, because God allows evil to exist in the world, for the reasons stated in Genesis. That Pro ignores my citations and quotations is not synonymous with drop of arguments, Pro’s accusation notwithstanding.
 
XIII.c Therefore, by universal agreement of the nature of syllogism, if one Pn is demonstrated as flawed, the syllogism fails.
 
IX Rebuttal: Pro’s R1 & R2: Pro’s Animal suffering with E, G, GE, GJG, & [GSG]
 
IX.a I note that the last acronym alphabet soup in the list above [GSG] has no definition in either R1 or R2, and, therefore, in its use, the outcome is senseless relative to justifying the Resolution. It now becomes a Rule #1 violation for Pro to define it in R3. Therefore,  “A GSG for E only applies if…”  and all that follows this claim in points i, ii, iii in R1, fails.
 
IX.a.1 Since we’re such grammarians: All acronyms used according to the Chicago Manuel of Style:  “...acronyms: the rule is you spell out the words first followed by the acronym in parentheses..., and then use the acronym for later references in the copy.”[12]  
 
IX.a.2 On the basis of this failure, the entire discussion of Pro’s acronyms fails by definition.
 
IX.b  However, they also fail by reason. Pro’s syllogism related to the alphabet soup begins:
 
“P1:  If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils.”
 
No. Both good and evil exist irrespective of God, or anyone else. Else, the command“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect”[13]    serves no purpose for man.  How can man draw a distinction between good and evil, perfection and imperfection, if there is no measure of either? In the Garden, as mentioned before, Adam and Eve are told, 
 
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.”[14]
 
IX.b.1  This demonstrates that good and evil must be able to be distinguished by man in order for free agency to have purchase by man. That agency must be freely available, without coercion from either side. The simple truth Pro ignores is that neither God, nor Satan, coerce. Our choices are truly our choices, alone, which is why we are ultimately held to them. Refer to my argument, R2, II, above. Therefore, Pro’s argument & Resolution fail.
 
Pass R3 to Pro.
 
 
 
 

Round 3
Pro
Prelim I: Rules / Rebuttal of What’s in a name? Pro’s “legal fiction”, 5,000 words of inconsequence and six syllogisms

In short

  • Fauxlaw: fauxlaw is my chosen handle for this website, and lowercase is the only rendering it is given, English grammar rules, or legal fiction rules be damned.  
Shiver me timbers. I never realised arguing away a whole contention simply requires one to say "rules be damned. Enough". Some of us wish to operate on a more profession level. 

Before I seriously unpack my opponents violation, I must ask my opponent why they wish to divide their rebuttal my Preliminary I into three separate sections. Why not combine them all and format them into a single rebuttal? It makes this must more confusing than it has to be. 

Nevertheless, my opponent begins correctly by categorising my argument as to do with legal fiction. However, they assert that there name on this website, fauxlaw, is not a proper name, it is a moniker. 

Notice how this is a quite a lazy cop out, which does not even sufficiently cop up opponent out of this sticky situation. I never asserted that my opponent couldn't set his name as fauxlaw (though it is reflective of his lack of understanding in proper nouns). What I do maintain is that though you have a choice to whatever name you wish to adopt, that name cannot jeopardise the fundamentals of the language of which it is operating. Sure, be name yourself fauxlaw, but the fact of the matter is that your name is a proper noun and in this situation, it is at the beginning of the sentence, requiring a capital letter. I do not know how to make this any more clearer than it is. What you are doing is akin to me saying "ok, my name is bones, has to hav the bold or else its not me, alsoo no capitel englssh diktionary be damned, also i dont prioratise speeling either so rules be damned agian REEEE...".

The fact of the matter is that you can break the rule if you want, but you cannot compel me to break them along side with you. I wish to capitalise proper nouns, especially if they are at the beginning of the sentence. You may wish to break them, but you cannot then say that I am in the wrong for speaking proper English. 

My opponent then attempts to, without much success, rebut the syllogisms I provided in the previous round. Their entire rebuttal can be summarised in the following two statements;

  • Fauxlaw:
    • "The sequence of my argument and rebuttal is mine to establish, by round, and I’ll thank Pro to keep his place and not dictate my order of presentation, Rule #1 being the only exception
    • [every one of my syllogisms are] completely off-topic to the Resolution, and differs from III, above."
Yes, ignore every single rule except for the one which is of use to me! What is the point of setting rules if their only purpose is to be broken? How did you determine that rule 1 is the only rule worth following? This is simply your judgement. To use your own words, you have in spite of the rule, entered a first round; tacit acceptance of the debate to proceed. To use another one of your sayings, I urge voters to "consider what occurs only within the corners of the debate rounds, including Pro’s Resolution and Description". Yes voters, please consider what is written in the descriptions. 

On your second statement, I must remind you that simply asserting that my arguments are off topic without elaborating isn't going to cut it. How are they off topic? Are they related to "Pro's Resolution and Description"? It would seem so. This is a text book example of someone ignoring the premises of an argument and asserting that their oppositions syllogisms are wrong because of the confronting conclusion they arrive at. 

I must remind voters that they should act upon Ragnar's advice, that is; 

Ragnar
  • "A debate may have special rules specified within the description. These are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide"
The distinction here is similar to that between a legal and non legal rule. Just like how the police will not arrest you for committing a hand-ball, the mods will not come and detain Fauxlaw for his violation, rightfully so. However, this isn't to undermine the importance of non-legal rules. How would it look if I were a footballer who went into a game violating every rule of soccer there is. From no slide tackling from behind, to offsides, to handballs, I check all the boxes. Obviously, this is a breach of a rule, and sufficient punishment should be delivered. Does it matter that the police aren't coming? No. The fact is that entering a soccer match means that you implicitly accept the rule and their relevant consequences. 

We find ourselves (or you do at least) in a similar situation. Fauxlaw has entered a debate, tacitly accepting the rules especially as he did not voice any queries prior, and proceeded immediately to break the rules. The relevant punishment is in order, that is, "an instant loss".

This point alone is sufficient justification for my opponents immediate disqualification. Thus, VOTE PRO

==

Rebuttal: Likelihood is not probability

To apply a hitch slap, this entire argument is a semantic kritik, of which rule 6 stipulates is not allowed. Breaking such rule should result in an instantaneous loss. 

Nevertheless, it is a weak Kritik which falls apart at every turn, from the definitions to the conclusion. My opponent invites us along to a fishing trip, where we bring a some coins, a clairvoyant, and a smart aleck attitude. Fishing poles and baits are optional. However, unlike my opponent, I will actually pick apart why this is the case, instead of just asserting that we are going on a field trip. 

Fauxlaw: The word Pro wanted to support his Resolution was not likely, but probably.



Sorry, but the terms likely and probable are interchangeable. Thus this whole kritik is void. 

Fauxlaw: Pro’s Resolution fails because Pro does not argue either likelihood, or probability, but, instead, argues in an absolute

Again, the term likely refers to the statistical scenario in which X is more probable of being true than Y. There is absolutely no problem with me arguing for an absolute (just as how you are arguing that there is absolutely a God). For example, in the scenario that I prove that God absolutely does not exist, then it can be asserted that there is a 100 percent change that God does not exist. In this case, it is surely correct to say that it is likely that God does not exist (after all, something which is 100 percent true is more likely to be true than something which is 0% likely to be true). 

Moreover, my opponent fundamental assumption that I argue in absolute is false. To argue in terms of absolute is to argue for certainty. I will be the first to admit that I am not absolutely certain that I am correct, in the same sense that I am not absolutely certain that I am not in a software created 30 seconds ago. However, I will say that it is likely that I am not in a software, just like how I believe it is likely that God does not exist. 

==

Rebuttal: O/A1

Fauxlaw: First, Pro will kindly make proper reference to my numbered sections. I do not have an “O/A1”

Coming from the person who constantly uses ad hominem attacks, and unnecessarily divides their argument into three sections, I am surprised that I am being asked a favour. To use my opponents own allegation towards me against himself, I'll "thank CON to keep his place and not dictate my order of presentation". Yeah that's right. Keep your place. 

Regarding my point one, being 

Bones: the term omnibenevolent, which is, to be "all-loving, or infinitely good". To be infinitely good is to be so good that a being with greater goodness cannot be conceived. Obviously, it is possible to imagine a "gooder" God than one who "take's breaks from the job" and ignores suffering animal on the basis that he should be able to exercise his "free will". 

Fauxlaw makes the following two statements. 

  • Is it just because Pro says so? There’s not even a presented logical argument of his own making. 
Fluff

  • Man is made in imperfection
Yeah that's become pretty clear. Except for the fact that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27). I though God's image was perfect? What happened to God being omni this and omni that? Surely an infinitely loving being would not intentionally make an imperfect creation, knowing the terrible suffering it will go through. 

I highly recommend voters thoroughly re-read my above quotation, as, if I do say so myself, it is a very valid point which has unfortunately been downplayed by my opponent. 

Regarding my point 2, being that Occam's razor would deem the  probability of a virgin mother birthing a God to be slightly lower than the fact that someone may be hallucinating (very common, actually) and, despite good intentions, gotten their facts mixed up, Fauxlaw replies

Fauxlaw: the more simple argument … is that God is a resurrected being, a most holy human who has been through our mortal experience and not just survived it, but overcame it. 

Yeah, you're not following on are you? Which account is simpler? 1) Your proposition or 2) People were mistaken about what they thought they saw, and ultimately wrong about religion (people who worshipped  Wonderism, Mohism, Vedic religion, Mithraism, Mesopotamian mythology, Egyptian mythology, Sumerian mythology,  Canaanite religion etc have all realised they were wrong. Why not add one more to the list?) 

Regarding the third point, where I asserted that to prove something was 80% likely falls into the category of X being likely to occur, my opponents goes off about some semantical difference between the term likely and probable. This is a kritik. This is a breach of rule 6.  Even so, it is a completely nonsensical attempt at a semantical breakdown of my argument. 

Fauxlaw: Since he used “likely” and not “probable” in the Resolution, Pro is tied to that keyword



Is the definition interchangeable? Yes. Is this a poor attempt at a semantic Kritik? Yes. Is it effective? No. 

==

Rebuttal of God's existence, by the Bible itself

As a response to my 

P1:   “If a book, for whatever reason, contains contradictions or flaws, the claims that it makes should not be trusted.” 

 Fauxlaw asserts 
  • Unfortunately, this if/then has a flaw in that it does not account for the potential of verifiability. 
Consider the double standard that is at play here. Imagine if this were a debate about the Holocaust, and I summoned a source, riddled with contradictions, spelling errors and incorrect names. Would it be fair to say "No no, this source can be trusted, and dismissing it for it's contradictions and flaws does not account of the potential verifiability". Obviously, whatever "potential verifiability" there is must first be demonstrated before the source becomes credible. The existence of flaws which cannot be immediately justified should renders instantaneous caution, for the question becomes, what other parts are historically flawed? 

Thus my syllogism still stands, rendering the bible as an illegitimate source to cite. 

==

Rebuttal: Existence vs essence 

Fauxlaw: The point Pro made was that these cameras were “non-intelligent life. 

Unfortunately this is a complete straw man argument. I never asserted that the cameras weren't created by intelligence. I simply asserted that messages only require an interpreter to exist, not necessarily a sentient messenger. I use the example of the 1975 Mars Viking as it involves a message from a non intelligent source being relayed to interpreters as a message. 

Fauxlaw: Pro also ignores that we know that God is the designer because we know that we did not design DNA.

Unfortunately, the above aptly replies to my opponents argument. Information only requires a messenger to exist. This argument is a variation of the infamou watchmaker analogy, that is, it asserts that X is complicated, complicated things have creators, therefore X has a creator. 

p1. DNA is complicated 
p2. Complicated things such as watches have creators
c1 The universe had a creator. 

Now consider the following, which magnifies my opponents flaw. 

p1. DNA is small
p2. Small things such as tic tacs are tasty. 
c1. DNA is tasty. 

As is evident, the problem arises in premise 2. Complicated things are not always created like watches, just like how small things are not always tasty like tic tacs. Moreover, this argument is also 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
==

Affirmation of the Anti-Kalam 

Fauxlaw:
  •  “If God exists, then God created the entire universe.”  [Bones] syllogism fails here, because... God did not create the entire universe...
And as a way to ignore the cumbersome evidence provided by tools such as Bible Study Tools, Bible Studies, Blue Letter Bible, Bible Ref, Bible Hub, Emerging Scholar and Jehovah's Witness

Fauxlaw:
  • Pro can cite all the biblical experts he likes. I prefer to cite the volume, the Holy Bible, itself, as best evidence
Two major issues. First, to dismiss an oppositions half dozen sources is not only disrespectful, but completely ineffective, especially in the way you have done so. Without providing any reason as to why or where they are faulty, CON throws them all out the window. The second, more embarrassing issue is that this is quite literally what I stated last round

Bones:
  • "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” Colossians 1:16
    • Key words. Invisible. All things were created through him.
      • "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 
      • The term "the heaven and the earth" are the normal phrases in the Bible for the universe. Deuteronomy 32:1; Psalm 148:13; Isaiah 2
yikes. Obviously, if the bible, my opponents beloved source, states that God is "the Lord who makes all things", then he is, I would assume, the Lord who makes all things, not the lord who makes some things. 

For memories sake, I present the Anti-Kalam syllogism once more. 

P2: The universe is uncaused
C: God does not exist

The first premises true because of 1) the 8 sources of which I provided and 2) the verses of which I provided directly from the Bible. As the second premise was uncontested it holds and therefore the conclusion, God does not exist, is valid. 

==

Affirmation of the Anti Ontological 

My opponent choses to, instead of rebut the new syllogism, rebut the syllogism from R1. 

Fauxlaw: Pro’s reference to my “agreement” was to a non-cited outside source.

Argument 2 from Fauxlaw, line 66 from the top, 3rd line of IV Rebuttal: Pro’s R1: Anti-ontological argument. Check for yourself. Nevertheless, this is not the point. The point is that I attempted to work of a premise my opponent agreed to in order to get to the crux of the debate, without needing to run around in circles. My opponent knows that they agree with p1, and yet they stubbornly assert that "well you have no evidence to support it". Evidence here is not the point. If you inspect the syllogism's first premise, being "the creation of the man is the most marvellous achievement imaginable", you find that the word man can be substituted with anything my opponent believes to be the most "marvellous", without decreasing the effectiveness of the syllogism. I, in an attempt to maximise our conversation, chose what I know you believe is the most marvellous creation, and yet you refuse to cooperate. I pitiful strategy to drag time and waste rounds. 

Consider the following syllogism, of which should be fool proof from kritiks. 

P1. The creation of the X 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 X while not existing. 
P5. An existing God would not be greatest conceivable creator, as an even more incredible creator would be a God which did not exist
C1. God does not exist.

My opponents only rebuttal, if you can call it that, was actually my attempt to move things along by building the first premise on what we both know my opponent believes. As this is not sufficient in debunking the essence the argument, and all other premises have not been addressed, the conclusion is valid. God does not exist. 

==

Affirmation of Occam's Razor

Fauxlaw: I’m curious about the relation between the biblical Christian God and metaphysical naturalism

Considering you're the person who said, God’s existence cannot be proven by mere logic or reason, I'm not surprised you're struggling. I have already explained this twice, and will not be doing so again. 

Fauxlaw: That’s an absolute argument, and, therefore, on two fundamentals, outside the scope of the debate.

Refer to above section, likelihood is not probability rebuttal. As stated prior 

Bones: For example, in the scenario that I prove that God absolutely does not exist, then it can be asserted that there is a 100 percent change that God does not exist. In this case, it is surely correct to say that it is likely that God does not exist (after all, something which is 100 percent true is more likely to be true than something which is 0% likely to be true). 

==

Affirmation of Animal suffering

Fauxlaw: 
  • “P1: If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils.” 
    • This statement is flawed... which gave Adam & Eve free agency to choose between good and evil, because God allows evil to exist in the world, for the reasons stated in Genesis
The free will defence, however, does not hold. As I stated in the opening statement. Recall 

BonesBy definition, a GE is a type of E of which creates no G. A GE does not lead to virtue, does not teach a lesson, and is completely unjust. A GE definitionally cannot be cannot be justified by "free will" or "compensation in a latter life", for it would then be a GJG.

By definition, a GE is inexcusably immoral. Inexcusable. If there is an excuse for the evil, then it is not a GE. As stated prior, a GE includes things like moral and prosperous people being raped and killed by the sidewalk. It isn't things like "punishment", for which goods can be reaped. 

 Fauxlaw: I note that the last acronym alphabet soup in the list above [GSG]

My apologies. Substitute all mentions of GSG with GJG. 

Fauxlaw: No. Both good and evil exist irrespective of God, or anyone else. Else, the command “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect”[13]   serves no purpose for man. How can man draw a distinction between good and evil, perfection and imperfection, if there is no measure of either?

Unfortunately, this is not compatible with the belief that there is an all loving God. Sure, there is a distinction to be drawn between evil and good, but this does not alleviate God's duty to prevent gratuitous evils, assuming he exists and is infinitely loving. Gratuitous evils do nothing for man, it isn't punishment, it a result of free will, it isn't redemption, it isn't a test of personality, it is by definition purely immoral. A God who loves infinitely would not allow a purely evil act to be plagued up on those who he allegedly care about. Imagine for example, that whilst Adam and Eve's were walking in the garden, they were faced with a pack of monster devil cockroaches which ate them up like a pack of marshmallows. This is exactly what people around the world are facing (not the monster devil cockroach bit, but definitely the immoral part). They are put in situations in which they have no choice but to suffer and die, under the apparent unerring supervision of an all loving God. I admit that if God exists, God justified evils can exist without creating a paradoxal situation, but gratuitous evils simply cannot exist in the presence of an all loving God
==

Conclusion

I have presented 5 arguments of which affirm the resolution and have also successfully refuted all of my opponents arguments. To remind the voters, my opposition bears the burden of proof, meaning that if he cannot prove that God, not just any God, but Yahweh as described in the Christian bible, he will lose. Remember, Yahweh isn't just an unmoved mover or DNA writer, he is a being who currently exists, is conscious, posses the 4 omni's, listens to prayers, forgives people of their sins, reads the innermost thoughts of people and created an afterlife for all good people to congregate. Thus far, my opponent has not provided any arguments for this, and as rule 1 stipulates that there are to be no rules made in the final round, Fauxlaw's BoP had not been satisfied. Moreover, my opponents entrance into this debate, as specified by rule 7, results in an instantaneous loss. Should be an easy vote. 

Vote Pro
Con
Resolved: The Christian God of the Bible likely does not exist
 
I Review: The arguments Con has presented in this debate’s R1 & R2
 
I.a By review, I offered 3 arguments in R1 for the likely existence of the Christian God of the Bible, and 2 arguments in R2:
 
1.    Existence of the Christian God by the Bible, itself [R1, III]
2.    Existence of the Christian God by Science [R1, IV]
3.    Natural Theology: Existence vs. Essence [R1, V]
4.    “Likely” the word in Pro’s Resolution, became “”absolute” [R2, I]
5.    Atonement: the solution to end all suffering by all living creatures [R2, II]
 
I.b As per Pro’s Rule #1, no new argument will be presented in R3. I will, however, defend against rebuttals by Pro, as needed, defend my arguments, as needed, and conclude.
 
II RebuttalPro, R1: 
 
II.a Pro began R1 with a curious self-description. Being “Pro,” yet, all Pro gave us were descriptions of not-being; i.e., being “anti-[fill in the blank].” I see no relevance of this to the Resolution since Pro is not the subject of the Resolution. 
 
II.b Pro introduced us to a bus-load of atheists who, by their statements, express a “lack of belief,” “non-belief,” “unreasonable to believe” in a god. Fine. I agree with their definitions, and Pro agreed with their definitions in his own definition statement in R1, of “atheism.” But, Pro then offers a differing statement:  "Someone who isn't convinced by the claims of theism"  Such a position is consistent with defining himself, as discussed in II.a, just above, but are definitions that merely define by an antithetical position reasonable definitions? No.
 
II.c Pro offered a long essay on the falsity of A-theory time. A lot of gas was expelled arriving at a conclusion that the A-clock is false: the universe was not caused. I never said it was. I said that, interpreting Genesis correctly, the Bible agrees: God created only the heaven and earth, the elements of universe, bot only that segment called ‘heaven’ that define the signs and seasons, and the days and years of Earth, alone. These elements had cause: the creation, as described succinctly in Genesis, the volume Pro spends minimal time discussing, yet it is acknowledged in the Resolution. The Resolution, as stated, fails.
 
III Rebuttal: Pro, R2:
 
III.a Douglas Adams’ garden fairies. Nice story. Fanciful, and magical. Relevance to the Resolution? Unimaginable, since no one but Pro has declared God a magician.
 
III.b   “Cracks and crevices in the Resolution.”   This is Pro’s rebuttal? Pro alleges that my BoP is something other than demonstrating cracks and crevices in the theoretical wall of the Resolution that  “the Christian God of the Bible likely does not exist?”  What should be my BoP? That magicians exist? That garden fairies exist? That concrete blocks exist? That an A-clock exists? That Einstein didn’t have general and relative theories? That this menagerie is not on a bus on some magical mystery tour? Sorry, none of this menagerie resides within the Resolution. What does reside there is a claim that the Christian God likely does not exist. That is Pro’s Resolution,  not the menagerie. 
 
III.b.1  Pro’s menagerie is a smoke screen.  The smokescreen, instead of arguing likelihood, goes to the extreme, also outside the Resolution, that the Christian God, nay,  any god, absolutely does not exist. I’m presenting evidence against the Resolution as defined in the references to my arguments above, in R3, I.a, in each of my R1 and R2 rounds. While the Resolution awaits for some evidence to support its likelihood, Pro is throwing the menagerie at you, the readers, and me. The menagerie is the magic and the fairies. I present God Almighty by five unassailed pillars noted above, R3, I.a. The Resolution fails.
 
III.c  Pro asks,  speaking of the creation,  How do you know that this isn't Allah's creation?”  Pro is perplexed, and fixated on proper names, but cannot distinguish when they’re not given. This “giving” will be re-visited; have patience. The question demonstrates a misunderstanding of both the Arabic and Hebrew lexicon in the words “Allah,” and “Elohim,” respectively.  “Allah” is not a proper name anymore than is ”Fauxlaw.” 
 
III.c.1  Etymologically, the word, Allah, is a contraction of two words, an article and noun, rendered in Arabic as al-llah, “the God.”  In a similar fashion, Hebrew renders it  il-, el,-  or elo-him.[1]   Furthermore, the Qu’ran renders 99 names of God. Not one in the list is “Allah,” or “Al-llah.”[2]   
 
III.c.2  Likewise, the Holy Bible renders many names to “God,” which, etymologically, is also not a name, just as “Elohim” is not a name. The Hebrews were aghast at speaking the name[s] of God, but referred to him by a non-specific pronoun, an article and noun. 
 
III.c.3  An atheist might call “Allah” a “legal fiction.” This will be revisted.
 
IV Rebuttal: Pro, R3: Rule #7 [off topic, by the way]
 
IV.a Pro begins R3 by dredging up, once again, the matter over my acceptance of this debate that could have been dismissed entirely by Pro by simply requesting that a Mod cancel the debate before Pro ever entered a round 1 argument. This is entirely within Pro’s power to request. He did not. He chose to engage the debate, instead, thus cancelling any claim on my alleged violation of Rule #7.  
 
IV.a.1 Pro’s first quote from my R2, I never realised arguing away a whole contention simply requires one to say "rules be damned. Enough"   is not a debate-related comment toward Pro’s BoP, but simply a kritik, a violation of Rule #6. Further, accusation of my misunderstanding of proper nouns is also a kritik; Rule #6 violation. This continues to occur throughout the round, such as telling me a few sentences later that I may break rules, but Pro cannot be compelled to do so. He just did, again; Rule #6. A broken record.
 
IV.a.2 Pro then comments on my rebuttal of his R2 syllogisms by re-dredging the previous issue, thus changing his syllogism argument to the one above, IV.a. This fixation will ultimately be a decision whether Pro has shifted the debate subject to this implied acceptance of the debate, in spite of Rule #7, by entering a round 1 argument rather than cancelling the debate.  To wit:  Pro says, “…though it is reflective of his lack of understanding in proper nouns…”  demonstrating that Pro has misunderstood that fauxlaw is not a proper noun or proper name, so proper noun rules do not apply, and certainly have naught to do with the Resolution.
 
IV.b  Back to what is the topic of this debate, i.e., the Resolution [quoted above], I said of Pro’s syllogisms in R2, I.e:   “Pro’s Resolution fails because Pro does not argue either likelihood, or probability, but, instead, argues in an absolute: God does not exist, at all.   Many of Pro’s failed syllogisms conclude with this absolute, a mutually exclusive outcome.”   
 
IV.b.1 Pro replies that voters should consider what is written in the Description. I presume he refers to the Rules. Fine. Also consider what else is written in the Description Pro prepared: After having given a Resolution as I’ve quoted above, he then offered the   “INTERPRETED RESOLUTION: The God of the Christian bible does not exist.”  There is clear distinction between these two Resolutions, the latter taking away any consideration of his original statistical measure of “exist” to one of an absolute. Pro argues that “likely” and “probable” are similar definitions. Yes, in common language, this is true. However, just as the word “theory” has two differing meanings between common and scientific language, these two terms, likely and probable, differ in the scientific, i.e. specifically, statistical language, as I pointed out in my R1, I.a.2, and R2, I.b. 
 
IV.b.2  Further, I pointed out in my R2, I.a  that the shift from “likely” to “absolute” was a violation of Rule #2, by not abiding by definitions as given by Pro in Description. 
 
IV.b.2.A  Pro says, “Moreover, my opponent fundamental assumption that I argue in absolute is false.”   Pro may wish to reconsider that a phrase,  “The God of the Christian bible does not exist,”    expresses uncertainty, as Pro later argues, but it appears, by syntax, to be an absolute. There is no hedging, no step back, no hesitation. No uncertainty. Further, that he adds to the rebuttal by argument of his uncertainty may be construed as a new argument. Pro’s “uncertainty” has not been entertained in previous rounds. Violation of Rule #1?  Caveat lector.
 
IV.b.2.B Finally, I claim that Pro’s refusal to choose between his two offered Resolutions, as I challenged in my R2, I.a:  “Pro is going to have to decide between likelihood, or absolute, for R3, else risk violation of Rule #2, to maintain definitions as accepted…”   Pro has thus violated Rule #2.  Caveat lector.
 
 
V Rebuttal: Pro’s R3: “O/A1” 
 
V.a Yes, we know Pro means to say “I Observation/Argument,” and, having advised that Pro see to his order and method of debate, as I do mine, I’ll advise Pro, in the future, to be certain to avoid such comments that I   “unnecessarily divides their argument into three sections…”  If I choose to separate an opponent’s arguments into separate sections, doing so for clarity, that is entirely my choice, isn’t it?
 
V.a.1 Have I committed kritiks? I suppose I have. This debate was doomed from the start to be so encumbered; that may be the underlying resolution.  
 
V.a.2  I mention that Pro’s rebuttal of my division of his R2, O/A1 argument was numbered, by Pro, as 1., 2., 3. Three sections. I numbered my R2, VII.c rebuttal as VII.c.1, VII.c.2, VII.c.3. I see no attempt to separate any argument Pro did not already separate himself.  Caveat lector.
 
V.b Re: Pro’s rebuttal of my “O/A1,” as Pro insists calling it [recalling that I have just been chastised for altering an opponent’s sections], says, “Regarding my point 2, being that Occam's razor would deem the  probability of a virgin mother birthing a God to be slightly lower than the fact that someone may be hallucinating (very common, actually) and, despite good intentions, gotten their facts mixed up…”
 
V.b.1  “…a virgin mother birthing a God”   is not a previously entertained argument by Pro in R1 or R2. Is this a new argument added in Pro’s R3, rebutting my “O/A1?” Added menagerie, and a Rule #1 violation?
 
V.b.2  “hallucinating”  is not a previously entertained argument by Pro in R1 or R2. There’s even a citation offered for this off-topic piece [which concludes that more study is warranted on the subject, and I’ll refer to my rebuttal, R2 VIII.b.1.]  New argument, also added in Pro’s R3 “O/A1?” Still more added menagerie and Rules violation?
 
V.c Pro complains that I have rebutted his R2 omnibenevolence argument,  “…that God cannot be God because it is conceivable to imagine a“gooder [?] God…”
by my R2, VII.c.1 rebuttal. Pro’s claim as quoted has no argument by Pro beyond the claim, and no scholastic citation, either in R2. Not in R3, either.  
 
V.c.1  It becomes opinion only, to which Pro replied in R3, that God’s image was perfect, therefore, we should have been created perfect.  Pro ignores that an image of something is just that; an image. A likeness, if you will, but not the original object. In this case, the original object being God, himself. We were created in his likeness, i.e., as he can be perceived, but we certainly are not him, as I have previously argued since we are imperfect. We have the potential to become perfect, like God. The idea of being created in his likeness relates to the idea of his objective reality, as Pro defines “exist,”  and, as I argued in R1, I.a.1.E.i.  Just a thought, relative to definitions, as given by Pro, as well as to the simplicity of Occam’s razor, by the way. Therefore, this rebuttal meets the requirements of my BoP of the Resolution, and Pro’s own argument by definition of “exist,” defeats it.
 
V.d Pro rebuts my argument,   “Man is made in imperfection,”  [R2, VII.c.1.A]. Re-visiting my V.c, above, introduced elements in his re-played Occam’s razor argument not previously entertained. Make of that as you will. Pro totally drops my follow-on argument to this subject of imperfection that there was purpose in God’s creation of heaven and earth, including us, in imperfection: that we would then be given free agency to choose to become perfect, ultimately, or to choose to deny perfection, as I argued in R2, II. 
 
VI Defense: Pro’s R3:  Rebuttal of God’s existence by the Bible
 
VI.a   Pro’s rebuttal conveniently dropped the point of verifiability, citing, instead, a separate subject altogether, the Holocaust. Fine. As being unrelated to this Resolution, I’ll drop the Holocaust. The issue is verifiability. I offered, R2 VIII.b.1, a 5-step secular method of verifiability of encountered unknown information, then offered a Biblical reference of the same method from James 1: 2 – 5 to demonstrate the scope possible in verification, even of biblical contradiction. 
 
VI.b  Pro drops that there is a source to use in any manner and matter of study, even if it entails a search for discovery of the existence of God. Even the Christian God, the subject, after all, of this debate. What  “Wonderism, Mohism, Vedic religion, Mithraism,” et al,  has to do with the Resolution, Pro never explains. These must be still additional menagerie. So be it. I declare Pro’s rebuttal to have failed in all respects, being off-topic menagerie, off-definition, and offensive:
 
VI.b.1 Pro declares,  “…the bible as an illegitimate source to cite”   having already cited it, himself, in the Resolution. The Resolution fails by Pro’s limitation.
 
VII Defense: Pro’s R3: Rebuttal of Existence of God by Science / Existence vs. Essence
 
VII.a Pro declares a straw man argument. I quote, from my R2, 9A, which first quotes Pro from his R2, “Pro concludes his rebuttal:  “This is just one example of "information" being communicated by nonintelligent life.”   “This” example was the camera, and resulting photograph, aboard the 1975 Mars Viking,[9]  and a subsequent camera and photo aboard the 1996 Mars Global Surveyor, which was more detailed. The photos don’t matter. The point Pro made was that these cameras were “non-intelligent life.” Really? Living cameras that are stupid? Okay…??”   Pro can argue against straw men all he wants, but these are his words, referring to the Mars Viking camera, communicating by non-intelligent life.  Straw man addition to the menagerie. The more, the merrier.
 
VII.a.1  All this when I made no mention of photography in my argument on Existence vs. Essence. It is an argument of evidence-basis vs. description of attributes basis, as I argued in R2, V.a.1, V.a.2. Pro drops this entire argument, and instead, contrary to his criticism of my sectioning his argument, combines my Existence vs. Essence argument with my Existence of God by Science, the preceding argument in my R1. DNA is not referenced in Existence vs. Essence. Pro put it there, thus making an argument rebuttal where there is none necessary to make.  Caveat lector.
 
VII.b  Pro makes additional syllogisms, supposedly against the Existence vs. Essence argument, when it actually belongs in the Existence of God by Science argument, which specifically has no mention in Pro’s R3. Dropped? Caveat lector.
 
VII.b.1 Pro’s first “syllogism” [in quotes, because failed syllogism cannot use that description] offers:
 
“P1: DNA is complicated.”   To the uninformed, yes. To experts, it’s quite simple; as my original source maintained, it is digital information.[3]  Therefore, P1 fails.
 
“P2: Complicated things, like watches, have creators.”  True, Simple things, too, which Pro fails to mention. Therefore, P2 is incomplete, and, thus, it fails, as well.  Anyone familiar with syllogistic form knows that even if one Pn  fails, the whole syllogism fails.
 
“C: The universe had a creator.”  Since P1 fails, outright, and P2 is incomplete, C also fails.  Double failure since the statement is not true.  Heaven did, per Genesis 1: 1, but not the universe.
 
VII.b.2 Pro’s second “syllogism:”
 
“P1: DNA is small.”  That statement is relative, and perhaps not so small in the perspective of smaller things, still, but, I’ll allow it, relative to our size.
 
“P2: Small things such as tic tacs are tasty.”   Again, depending on perspective, this is relative.  A tic tac is about the same size as a pair of peppercorns. Would most people define them, eaten whole, as “tasty?” Moreover, a tic tac is about the size of a rabbit’s feces. Need I ask? I’m going to have to call this a fail as being a perspective too broad to satisfy human taste buds.
 
“C: DNA is tasty.”  Since P1 is relative, a maybe, at best, and P2 is a complete failure, C also fails as a syllogism, eventhough DNA may, in fact, be tasty, since I am eating DNA when eating filet mignon, but we’re not talking about maybe, here, were talking about a logical construct, and this one fails by its excessive broad scope. Shall we add failed “syllogisms” to the menagerie? End.
 
VII.c Pro then argues  “false cause fallacy,”  a logical construct never brought up by Pro in R1 or R2, therefore, this constitutes still another new argument, a new managerie addition, even as a rebuttal, a violation of Rule #1. However, I will rebut the claim of “false cause fallacy,” that is, an incorrect reference to something as a cause.  Pro follows this mis-step [new argument] with another: an appeal to nature, another menagerie, which is a reference to something as natural when it is not, such as saying vitamin supplements are the same as eating the natural-sourced foods containing the same vitamins. Nope. Because one, the latter, is natural, does not imply that supplements, the former, are, as well. The former have been processed; manipulated. Not natural. Nor is Pro’s argument. 
 
VII.c.1  Pro argues, “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.”   Yes, natural selection is an unconscious process [or has not been demonstrated otherwise, as Pro allows, allowing that it may be demonstrated in the future], but that process, itself, is dependent on a still more basic, natural process, that was created by intelligent design that allows for the complexity of …  “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”[4]  These are Darwin’s last words in the volume,  On the Origin of Species,  First Edition. 
 
VII.c.2  Pro declares, we have zero examples of life being created by a designer…”  Well, a recognized scientist of the 19th century saw it differently.  Even he refers to “the Creator” in this first edition, as being the originator of the natural selection process, so, maybe Pro ought to reconsider what came first, even before natural selection began its process on Earth to produce   “…millions of examples of nature creating complex life.   It is likely the Resolution is defeated.
 
VIII Rebuttal: Pro’s R3: “Affirming the anti-Kalam”
 
VIII.a  Pro charges that my claim that God did not create the entire universe is faulty. I merely cited the Bible, Pro’s definitive Resolution source of the Christian God, citing the creation of “heaven and earth,” [Genesis 1: 1] stipulating later the Genesis reference that the Sun and Moon, and other stars, but not all since these were the creation of “heaven” to be “signs and seasons, and days and years” of Earth. [Genesis 3: 14, 15]. Once again: Pro opened the door for use of the Bible in Description, indeed, in the original Resolution itself, then seeks to shut it out again in argument. Sorry, Counselor, once allowed as evidence, it remains evidence unless the withdrawal can be argued as valid. Sorry, no such argument from Pro.
 
VIII.a.1 Let’s recall Pro’s witness:  “…the bible as an illegitimate source to cite”
 
VIII.a.2 Pro offers the menagerie of so-called Bible experts, to which I rebutted in R2 that I’d rather use the Bible as best evidence, and not modern interpreters.
 
VIII.b Sorry, but best evidence is the original source; therefore, Pro’s claim fails, as does the Resolution.
 
VIII.c Pro reprises his R2 arguments of Biblical references [I thought he banned the Bible as illegitimate, yet here are more biblical references by Pro?], Collosians, Isaiah, Deuteronomy, Psalms, ignoring my rebuttal R2, X.b, that, “…all of which reference  “heaven[s] and earth.”  There is no argument what Earth is; the issue with Pro is that “heaven” means “universe.” As my R2, V.d.1 & V.d.2 cites, heaven is the local star group, including the Sun and Moon for signs, seasons, days, and years. The universe at large does not do that for Earth.”   
 
VIII.c.1 Pro reprises a defeated “syllogism:”
 
“P1: If God exists, then he created the entre universe.”  However, we’ve just cited Genesis, declaring a limited “heaven,” to that which serves for signs, seasons, days and years of Earth. Not the entire universe. Best evidence. Therefore, P1 fails.
 
“P2 The universe is uncaused.”  I concur, but this does not negate P1.
 
C: God does not exist.”  The “syllogism” fails, still, due to a false P1.  Therefore, the Resolution fails.
 
IX Rebuttal: Pro’s R3: “Affirming the anti-ontological”
 
IX.a Pro claims evidence is not the point in my rebuttals of the anti-ontological since R1.  Am I compelled to alter my R1 argument against the anti-ontological? No. I stand on that rebuttal, as I stand on my R2 additions to it. The original “syllogism” as presented in Pro’s R1 contained an erroneous P1 justification, that I agreed to the premise:
 
“P1:  The creation of the man is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.”   I will ask again, as in my R1, how did I agree to this P1 when I had not yet entered my Round 1? It’s a valid question Pro has never seen fit to answer. The answer is: within the four corners of this debate, as of the top frame of R1, I had never agreed to this  P1 statement. Pro’s statement that I did agree to it is a lie, relative to this debate.  It is a point of order of debate protocol. Therefore, on this basis, since the ‘syllogism” fails on the failure of any one Pn, the matter is shut down here as a failure. Pro can depend on no other Pnto salvage the syllogism, or his anti-ontological argument. The Resolution fails.
 
 
X Rebuttal: Pro’s R3: “Affirming Occam’s razor”
 
X.a  Pro cites himself:  BonesFor example, in the scenario that I prove that God  absolutely does not exist, then it can be asserted that there is a 100 percent change that God does not exist. In this case, it is surely correct to say that it is likely that God does not exist (after all, something which is  100 percent true  is more likely to be true than something which is 0% likely to be true).”   Read this in conjunction with Pro’s earlier statement in this round 3 that I rebutted above, R3,  IV.b.2.A.i, regarding Pro’s “certainty.” Add certainty to the menagerie. The bus is full.
 
XI Rebuttal: Pro’s R3: “Affirming animal suffering”
 
XI.a Having adequately rebutted this argument in my R2, XIII, I will add only that Pro’s R3 statement My apologies. Substitute all mentions of GSG with GJG”   is an additional argument, even by correction.  By Rule #1, this is not allowed.
 
XII Defense: Pro’s dropped Con arguments
 
XII.a Pro has dropped, by my count, at least 8 Con arguments/rebuttals. They are:
 
1.    Creation of imperfection as a necessity to allow man free agency.
 
2.    Three Christian deities noted biblically, not just one.
 
3.    Pro argues an absolute, “God does not exist,” not just a likelihood, “…God likely does not exist,” according to Pro’s Resolution.
 
4.    Therefore, it follows that Pro never withdrew the contradicting “interpreted Resolution” [see #3, above].
 
5.     Pro never adequately rebutted the divine design argument via DNA, thereby demonstrating the likely, or probable existence of the Christian God.
 
6.    Pro never adequately defended his Hitchen’s razor argument against my rebuttal in my R1, VII.b, VII.b.1 rebuttal.
 
7.    Pro uses outside material [from the debate comments, and other non-cited outside sources], and was never defended.
 
8.    Pro never rebutted my argument of the Atonement of Jesus Christ as God’s plan to overcome all suffering experienced by all creatures, not just animals, and, in particular, man.
 
XIII Rebuttal: Pro’s R3 Conclusion.
 
XIII.a Not to be outdone in Rule #1, Pro offers a new entry argument into the discussion. Now, in my R3, when I am forbidden to enter a new argument, Pro has tasked my BoP:    “…that if he [Con]   cannot prove that God, not just any God, but Yahweh as described in the Christian bible, he will lose.” Pro has never offered a name of the Christian God before this last round. It is noticeably  missing from the Resolution. That it is declared required now makes it a matter of a new argument, and invites me to make it, which Rule #1 prohibits. I have already offered a name: Jesus Christ. I offered it in R1, I.b.2,  a perfectly legitimate offering in timing in this debate. Pro has not chosen to rebut it, as a name, until now, challenging an argument to be made. Nope. 
 
XIII.b After all, wouldn’t anyone agree that any argument rendered in R3, and not previously entered as argument in any previous to the last round, considering Rule #1, by either opponent, should be considered as a new argument, violating the Rule? Well, we did have fair warning I gave in my R3, III.c, that a name would be given. Too bad it’s too late to join the menagerie on stage. That actor name is missing from the playbill, the play’s principle character, after all.
 
XIV Conclusion: The Christian God of the Bible likely exists
 
X.a  In conclusion, I will add to the rebuttal that closed my discussion of R2 rebuttals, above, R3, III.c:  
 
X.b  An atheist would call “Jesus Christ” a “legal fiction,” as Pro argued in his R2, but, what’s in a legal fiction? Even the Resolution does not offer a name; just a title; a title I can find in every English Dictionary in the world. Line them up, cheek-to-cheek, reciting Greek poetry. And the titles, “Christian” and “God,” are contained therein.  I declare those titles as objectively real. That is Pro’s definition of “exist,” after all. Therefore, the Resolution fails.
 
I declare the Resolution a failure, a defeated statement, and all the menagerie, as well, and thank you for your attention. I ask for your vote for Con.