"Con gives critique to my argument but has not shown a better one. As a reminder, we are debating whether my best argument is as such. "
Right, your best argument. So it's my position to poke holes in it wherever it's not strong enough to hold solid and say try again. All in the Socratic method.
I don't necessarily have to suggest for you, a better argument, that's your burden.
But for the sake of education, by the end of this debate, I will put forth the one and only argument for anybody.
The keyword there is anybody.
Let's continue with what you got.
"Analyze Mall's rebuttal, he did not reject an single premise of the argument I proposed or explain why any of them are false. Extend my argument. "
Is questioning not rejecting?
If I ask you, how did something really happen I'm rejecting your initial explanation.
"Is your point here about evidence or something?"
"This is not a rebuttal or a rejection of any premise."
"What is your point with all this?"
"This is not a rebuttal or a rejection of any premise."
" The point is to create a deductive syllogism that indicates the plausibility of theism."
"The question is, why should I have faith or what's the best argument on having faith in miracles, workings of a supreme deity, things beyond our understanding, reasoning , logic and such?"
"None of this is a response, rebuttal, or a rejection of any premise of my argument. "
Wow, you answered none of the questions. This debate goes no further until you answer these questions.
You say none of this is a response. I don't know what definition you're using but when I act based on what you do, that's a response.
When you shoot a jab and I duck, it's a response. You're mixing response with a counter move or counter argument in this case.
Now you didn't answer the questions which is called evading. People evade a question in court often to avoid incrimination.
That means the rebuttal is not necessarily always in the question but in the answer you give causing you to commit seppuku in argumentative terms .
I think you're that smart and you know this is what you're doing.
If you want to be honest with direct answers, you will have to face self refutation.
Now I'll let all the other questions slide but here's one that's like the meat and potatoes.
"The question is, why should I have faith or what's the best argument on having faith in miracles, workings of a supreme deity, things beyond our understanding, reasoning , logic and such?"
In other words, what you did not cover in your points is what you should be arguing for .
Why should I or what is your argument for believing, accepting the supernatural where plausible reasoning and science cannot explain nor help me understand?
If you can't give an argument for that, you haven't covered all bases, it's not the best as that would be what the best is .
The best means it can't get no better. It's sufficient, it's substantial. You have not substantiated your position.
Put it this way, if I was going to be converted to a theist and I had this questions that were asked of you in this debate, you didn't answer them, somebody else comes along, answers them, I convert, who had the best argument?
See , if you know what you're talking about, you can answer the questions, no problem and they'd stand irrefutable.
But when you haven't developed enough regarding your position, it can easily fall apart when questioned (rejected), not so easily accepted as the gospel.
Then you throw a red herring, get evasive and try to switch it around.
That question is very important because it is something you did not cover.
Having a belief system particularly about the supernatural, things are accepted on faith , not on plausibility.
That's what it appears all you have an argument for is some level of rationality like that's all there is.
Again, the opposite effect is likely with a conversion to atheism or agnosticism. The more you talk about plausibility, the more questions creating the hesitation to accepting theism.
You get to a point where you've done so much talking about what makes sense to the natural world, you're building an argument focusing on the natural world the way it works. Building an argument for the natural world, not the supernatural one .
What do you think missionaries, preachers, Jehovah witnesses, Ministers do?
They don't argue a bunch of logic to people. It's not going to take that. We're beyond that .
Since you had a gripe about counter statements, there, a dissertation.
Now try better next round.
And yet atheists still exist.