Evolution proves that god is real

IntroductionIn this last round I will respond to the numerous objection made by my opponent.Argument 1: CreationMy opponent thinks that I am arguing against deism, but this is a strawman. The statement "God created the universe" does not entail that he stepped away from his creation, an analogy should clarify things:You are a game developer and you want to create a sandbox building game.You can finish creating the game's code and yet you would be able to further create things inside the game while playing it.It is quite nice that a philosopher agrees with Pro's position, but first of all the vast majority of philosophers are atheists and secondly virtually every evolutionary biologist disagrees with this particular philosophers opinion on a scientific topic.That aside the presented quote gives no insight into the reasoning behind it, as it stands it is merely an unsupported assertion.Moreover Pro claims that I am arguing against intelligent design, but Alvin Plantinga, arguably the most influential, contemporary philosopher of religion and proponent of intelligent design said: "As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world" (3) This is still intelligent design because he believes that God is guiding natural selection. Pointing out that I am missing the topic is a strawman, since my opponents position is fairly similar to Plantinga's."This debate is not about intelligent design- this debate is about accepting that the definition of God as the creator and the reality of evolution means that God is a real thing."But my opponent also stated on multiple occasions that evolution is an ongoing, observable act of creating which is basically a form of intelligent design.He then writes that as soon as we feel the warmth of a heater, i.e., see God's creation, we know it/he exists but this presupposes that everyone sees evolution as creation which is obviously not the case. The whole point of this debate is to find out whether evolution is in fact creation (or implies God in some other way). So yes, once I accept that there is active creation in this universe then I would accept that God exists, but I don't.The Many Worlds Interpretation has no bearing on this debate, I don't have to subscribe to it, the only claim my position is making is that it is not the case that evolution proves that God is real in the actual world.In his penultimate section of his argument Pro explains that "an act of God" does not necessarily mean that genetic mutations are guided by God, but he leaves the question open as to what is actually meant with "An act of creation/ God". How is it possible for evolution to prove God without him interfering in the most basic process on which all other processes of evolution supervene on? Because of this my opponent is in fact not making any specified claim I could respond to and this debate is futile in its entirety.In response to my question, as to which natural processes constitute creation, my opponent makes an analogy. He asks where the difference is between dead planets and populated planets and arrives at the conclusion that populated planets "have ongoing substantive creativity", but this is completely circular since for there to be creativity there already has to be life so his distinction between dead and populated planets is that the first are dead and the latter are populated.Pro asks me if I consider there to be a difference between them and I would answer yes, of course, but that is missing the point, being that both a meteor and genes obey the same laws of nature and as such my opponent needs to give an account of how we can subdivide two processes that follow the same rules into ones that are created and ones that are not. I am actually comparing a dead planet to a dead planet.Argument 2: LoveAt the beginning of this last arguments defence my opponents claims again that I am attacking a strawman. He then continues to say that "What needs to be demonstrated is that love is a new phenomena" and indeed I agree, it has to, but so far my opponent has not given a compelling argument in favor of it.The follow-up is a completely unsubstantiated assertion, being that "God is the force behind quantum multi worlds". From this he infers that a deterministic universe is impossible. The unsupported part aside, he then makes a non sequitur par exellence when he says that in a deterministic universe love cannot arise. This argument is about why this should be the case, not simply making this bold claim. Moreover this is completely talking past my evolutionary psychology objection, which is not a strawman but rather explaining exactly what Pro claims to be impossible: love in a deterministic universe.Furthermore I am fully aware that there are kinds of selection, that is why I pointed out this term, however my confusion arose from the term "selection criteria" (which is not what he is talking about) in combination with "selection through love", as my opponent calls it.I fully grant my opponent all five kinds of selection, but my important remark was that love is not a separate kind and it just so happens that he cannot give a citation for it.ConclusionIn this debate UnknownOne presented two arguments in favor of the resolution. Over the course of three rounds I refuted both conclusively since my opponent has never actually made an argument. With that said, thanks for reading.Sources:(1) http://chronicle.com...