There are no good reasons to think theism is true

I am grateful to the readers to take the time to review these arguments diligently as my opponent has worked very hard to distract the readers by shifting BoP and character assaults to win this debate. Burden of Proof: Pointing out my opponents BoP =/= a low moral character. My opponent would like the reader to believe that a statement confirming that we were both going to give arguments, was somehow a ‘clear’ elimination of his BoP as Pro and Instigator and we should all ‘just ignore the resolution’. He again disregard’s that Craig’s debates do not have this resolution. Compounding that Craig is indeed Pro and first position within the debates. My opponent does not seem to understand that he is in fact IN Craig’s place, not I, as he is asserting a positive claim for the resolution as Pro and instigator. Problem of Evil WSA is a logical argument even though it is titled with Evidential, as WSA himself states: “Consequently, the only evils that God is justified in allowing are those that are logically necessary to promote some adequately compensating good. That explains why I used the term “logically necessary” in my premise”[2] It is a logical concept: PoE Logical= God is logical inconsistent with Evil PoE WSA Logical/Evidential= Evidence is required to make God logically consistent with Evil PoE Evidential (Rowe’s)= Evidence is required to ‘trust’ the theologians explanation that an all good God can exist. We see R1, I indeed cited: 1: logical consistency requires no material evidence as logically God could compensate in the future. 2: Though 1 stands on its own, Evidence does indeed exist that God has ‘handled’ evil: diminishing memories, consequential afterlife/soul awareness, and primal awareness. All of it sourced.[below] We can conclude then, due to evidence, practically applied just within the last ten years, we can assert, God has solved evil and we can indeed conclude the PoE is not currently an issue. Let me be clear here. I do not care if God himself! labeled WSA as merely an evidential PoE. It is obviously a logical one, WSA himself asserts as much.Criag stated that classifications of PoE need to be clarified in order to avoid confusion: “It will be helpful if we distinguish between the intellectual problem of suffering and the emotional problem of suffering.”[6] Corrosive PoE & Circular Reasoning: My opponent apparently missed the concept where I asserted that the evidential PoE must “assume” the resolution to even work: “Evidential arguments from evil attempt to show that, once we put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being.”[1] My opponent claims my source supports his reasoning, yet did not quote my source saying such. This is what I am saying my opponent is doing: ‘Assuming ‘No’ good reasons exist then PoE Evidential is a problem, thus the resolution is affirmed that no good reasons exist.’ My opponent cannot use PoE for this resolution. Memory diminishment and primal awareness - Here my opponent attempts to finally refute the evidence, in the last round, with a poor qualitative analysis. (And a misrepresentation of my r1 & r2 posts) Here attempts to detract from the obvious evidence of Memory diminishment: - My opponent first confuses memory suppression with diminishment. The personal act of suppressing painful memories is significantly different than time oriented natural diminishment. Additionally, many studies detract from memory suppression and assert it is memory implants.[3] Discover Magazine asserts this growing trend of studies. “A growing body of evidence indicates that memory is deeply unreliable and that life-shattering events cannot be buried for years and then winched out of the deep waters of the subconscious” - Next my opponent complains that memory diminishment ‘cannot account for ‘all’ suffering’. He gives an example of a baby dieing days after birth after suffering. This was addressed in soul awareness and practical elements of the mind. We see that the mind in the afterlife would indeed transcend mere physical suffering and pain.[4] My opponent next takes issue at primal awareness. He claims primates having increased capacity for suffering = greater suffering. That begs the question. How so? - Given that memory diminishment is active in higher primates, they can learn from their suffering without having gratuitously negative consequences. - All other animals are unaware of pain cognitively.[5] Logical flow to my argument: If evidence exists that animals are not aware of suffering, and higher primates memories of suffering diminishes then suffering is not an issue. Evidence does exist that animals are not aware of suffering and higher primates memories of suffering does diminish. Therefore suffering is not an issue. Incomplete Theism Here my opponent misses the concept of a cumulative case. Contingency = a god exists Teleological = an involved God Evidence of Interaction = a specific Christian omni-max God Unjustified argumentation This was a bogus anecdotal assertion. He was merely making assumptions that my arguments were based on assumptions! He did not even attempt to prove this, but merely made the claim. Contingency P1 Here is no assumption. PSR does not apply to contingency argument. PSR = Everything that is caused has to have a sufficient explanation. Contingency argument P1 actually states = Everything that exists was either caused or uncaused. Two very different concepts, and there is no third option for P1 to contend with and is a working premise. Perhaps my opponent confused the cosmological argument? Teleological Implicit value & Probabilities My opponent claims my response is not relevant when he himself is lacking in the ability to comprehend the premises or the response. Teleology is arguing for purpose from the Fine Tuning for design. Everitt’s rejection was all possible universes could not be known. Craig agreed! But this is not theistic fine-tuning. As Craig stated Fine-tuning takes all of the known possible variables of this universe. Alternatives My opponent spends his characters not addressing any of the content. He source bashes ‘The Design Inference’ which is a Peer and Editorial reviewed directly dealing with physical interaction of chance and the Teleological Argument with literally pages of content. Stephen Hawking and Mindilow (agreeing with theists) asserted the validity that the physical could not exist prior to the first physical. That was sourced and quoted. Evidence for Interaction My opponent uses character assaults rather than telling the readers how it was not obvious he committed a fallacy. He also claims that the litany of testimonies was not verified! What does my opponent believe Theologians do? Is my opponent aware of the Canonization process for the saints? Councils and theologians rigorously verify the claims of these testimonies. Even if you disagree with the testimonies you cannot toss them out as unverified! Summary: We can see that despite character assassination, hate filled rhetoric, and a distinct level of disregard for the Burden of Proof, this debate has shown the resolution was not supported by my opponent’s single confused contention. We saw the PoE cannot affirm the resolution and we have 3 really good reasons to think theism is true. The premises stood, within this debate, as far more plausible than not. I thank all of the readers for bearing through the character assaults and I apologize if you felt I should have responded to the assaults. [1] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [2] http://commonsenseatheism.com... [3] http://discovermagazine.com... [4] http://xoomer.virgilio.it... [5] http://ndpr.nd.edu...[6]I