The Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist.

Rebuilding My ArgumentsStupid DesignCon's rebuttal can be summarized thusly: We can't say the universe or anything else is poorly designed, because if He designed it so, it must be perfect for His plan.I don't think it is too much to say that, objectively, a being which is not adept at surviving in its environment would not be well designed. Is it subjective to say that a hammer made of jell-o is poor at hammering in a nail? Of course not. Con would no doubt say that we can not say with as much certainty that the purpose of an organism is to survive, as the purpose of a hammer is to bang in a nail. It could indeed be apart of His divine wisdom to make us all certain to die of things which a better design would make non lethal. Except, in this, Con would be mistaken. Evolution has concluded that the sole purpose of an organisms' evolution is surviving. [1] That's the whole idea behind evolution. Mutation to attributes which are more advantageous. Advantageous to God's plan? No. Advantageous to surviving.We know evolution is to survive. We know we evolved. We know our purpose is to survive. Had God designed us, we would not be so inept at surviving, because God is perfect, and so too would be his designs.Impossible by His Own NatureCon is trying to convince us that if logic and reason is just as hard to believe in as believing there is an invisible, all powerful, all knowing, all good being in a supernatural realm watching over us. To those who believe that both these things are equal in likelihood, I am not addressing you. If you don't use reason, I can't convince you with reason, and so I won't attempt to. I'm not equipped to argue outside of reason, so I'll leave that to Con.Regarding Morality Unlike what Con would have you believe, I do not appeal to a God when I condemn Him (note he has not defended the actions of Yahweh, only said morality exists, and therefore a (any) God), I appeal to my own sense of morality. I decide for myself what is right and wrong and search my own conscious for adjudication. Now, Con can say I'm wrong, but he can't prove it, because he can't consult a God to adjudicate. Under Con's assertion, a moral issue is impossible. There is never any gray area and never any room for debate. Every issue is black and white, and we can discern which is which by appealing to an adjudicator we can never communicate to. There very fact that we are disagreeing proves that assertion wrong, for he should be able to invoke God and prove otherwise. Regarding Omniscience Con knows full well how the Book of Job ended. For the uninitiated, God allowed Satan to torture Job and kill his family to try to get Job to lose faith, because God was sure he wouldn't. He ended up being wrong, because Job did forsake God, and then God appeared to him and used the same argument Con has regarding conflicts with God's nature and reality : I know more than you and am more powerful. You are nothing. You have no right to question me. I am God. You have no right to be upset about you being tortured and your family killed because I am God and I said it was okay. [2] So the question is, why would God make a mistake about Job's faith, if he knew he would lose faith, and why would God make a wager with Satan that he knew he would lose? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not allowed to ask that question, and neither are you. Regarding OmnipotenceAgain, it's all part of God's plan, and you have no right to question it. To believe this is to wish to be a slave under the rule of a tyrant who is not open to democracy or appeal. The assumption that God has a reason to allow the unspeakable evils which exist is a generous one. Not only that, it presumes God's existence. God Hypothesis I admit, that when all the evidence in the known universe points to something being true, and no evidence in the known universe contradicts it, I am foolish and faithful and stupid enough to believe it is true. Guess we can't all be wise enough to believe something that no evidence in the known universe supports and all evidence in the known universe declares false to be true. "God cannot be proven to exist in the atheist worldview because it's already presupposed that he can't."It is not the atheistic worldview which I am employing. It is the scientific worldview. But I ask, why is it impossible to find scientific evidence of God's existence? Surely, everything should be evidence of His existence? There are many Christian and theistic scientists today, and many of the greatest of all time were religious. Surely, at least one of these found God in their research?But if my opponent is right, then the only way to prove God is to assume he exists. He also says the only way to disprove God is to assume he doesn't exist. I don't need to do this. I need only examine the concept of omnibenevolent against the evil in reality, the omniscience against the ignorance revealed in scripture, and the omnipotence against horrible design flaws. Nothing I have said has been refuted by Con, only the way in which I say it, which he says presumes God. Now, how can it be that I believe in logic and science and moral standards but not God? Surely, I need God for this? Here is his argument:Premise 1: I need to believe in God to use logic and science and moral arguments.Premise 2: I use logic and science and moral arguments.Conclusion: I believe in God. Now, according to Con, both premises are true. Therefore, the conclusion is true. This is valid logic, but it is not true logic. Why? Because one of the premises is wrong. The question is which one. Either I have not to this point invoked any arguments using logic, or science, or morality; or I don't need to presume God to use these things.Further Deconstruction of TAG Con has said time and again that the Christian worldview is the only one to account for logic, science and morality. That's not true. So does Islam. So does Judaism. So does Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and any religion you could name. But, or course, one needs none of these. I have shown why science and logic exists by necessity (for itself, like math) and is not dependent on a designer. I have also asserted (morality can't be proven as fact, as Con has said) that morality cannot come from Christianity unless we allow that torturing a human being to make them a scapegoat is a morally good act, and if this is true, well, there's no hope of me appealing to your sense of morality, is there? My conclusion from last round is still intact, so I apologize if this one sounds repetitive. Closing Statements After you finish reading Con's Round 4, I want you to come back and read this closing statement to see if anything has changed. Con has created his own straw man resolution and not argued for it very well. Let me remind him of what the resolution is: The Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist.Even if every single thing that Con has said is absolutely true and valid and perfect, he would not have made ONE SINGLE POINT for the existence of anything but a deistic god. Even is he does make one single point towards the resolution being false, he will have done so in the final round, to which I cannot respond, and should therefore be disregarded, because new arguments should never be introduced that your opponent can't respond to.Think about that. Even if everything I have said is wrong (it isn't), and everything Con has said is right (it isn't), I would still win because there has not been one argument made against the resolution that has been openly presented. That is why I have already won this debate before the final round is even over.Conduct: Con has tried on three seperate occasions to change the resolution to suit his needsSpelling and Grammer: Equal. Vote on who was more enjoyable to read, I guess More Convincing Arguments: Not only were my arguments not all logical fallacies (his one was), but mine were the only ones that regarded the resolution Sources: Equal. I would like to thank Con and the readers. [Citations in comments]