Dose God Exist

Firstguy has the burden of proof. He has undertaken to prove that gods do not exist. He has failed to meet that burden. Vote Pro. (I'm Pro, even though I'm going second, I'm Pro, because Firstguy named us backwards and I can't change it. If you're confused, it's his fault. I'm Pro even though he issued the challenge and argued first and so has the burden of proof.) Vote Pro. (Me.) Probability: Probability is statistics. If Pro looked at a great many universes, and determined what percentage of them have gods, then he could make legitimate claims about probability. Otherwise, not. Pro claims there is no evidence of god. That's not true. How could you have gotten started without me? How would you justify the morality that you believe in in my absence? Doesn't the modal ontological argument prove that I exist? Why would you have all these crazy conflicting religions if I weren't real? Have you seen the pictures of that face on mars? Why, but for me, don't the people on the bottom of the world fall off? What about the peacock's tail, huh? And irreducible complexity. And all of those stars in the night sky, put there just for your awe? How do you account for them? Even Sagan was awed by them. How do you account for order in the universe, all those endlessly perturbing ellipses, if not for me? But, back to the subject at hand: Firstguy claims that a lack of evidence makes gods improbable. That doesn't work. Many things are unevidenced but true. You know this. On his thirteenth birthday, George Washington had an even number of butt hairs. Or odd. One of those is true. One of those is true, but there is no evidence either way. The lack of evidence doesn't make the true one statistically improbable. And neither would the lack of evidence for god (if there were a lack) make me improbable. Firstguy makes a fuzzy argument about complexity. That argument works as a rebuttal to a particular theist argument. It's a good rebuttal, but it doesn't stand on its own. And it doesn't have anything to do with probability. That's all. Firstguy made three arguments under the heading of probability. None of them begins to work. Stupid Design: Death everywhere. Decaying orbits everywhere (so much so that you'd think Captain Kirk would have eventually learned that the proper order was, "Put her in decaying orbit"), vast uninhabitable reaches of space, blouses that button backwards, earthquakes, Michael Moore movies, flies, blisters on your dick. Yes. All true. But what does that prove? I made it the way I like it. I'm going to water-board most of you in Hell for eternity. (Yes, the original plan was involved fire, but George W Bush is even more cruel than me. Fire takes some people out of themselves, gives them a sort of mindless ecstasy of pain. I want you inescapably sapient in your terror.) Therefore, I filled the universe with death and pain and barrenness, to remind you ever of what your future holds. Calling it "stupid" won't save you. Only I can save you. And I will save only 144,000 of you. And those I will save not because they are worthy, or because I like them, but only to set the suffering of the majority into greater relief. Thus, the nature of the universe that you do behold. "The natural fact is always the adequate symbol." [1]You may denounce my Plan as immoral according to your puny human morals, but I am moral according to my nature, and my nature is good because I am god. Should the pot criticize the potter? In any case, Firstguy has done nothing to prove my design to be stupid. His disagreement, his puny human failure to appreciate, that doesn't make my design stupid. Problem of Evil: Firstguy's third and final argument is the problem of evil. Evil would be a problem indeed for a certain kind of god. It is true that I am powerful enough to prevent all evil. And it is true that I am smart, wise, knowing, and cleaver (specifically Beaver Cleaver) enough to prevent evil. But it is not my will to prevent all evil. I like most evil. I will enough good to set evil into sharp relief, but, beyond that, I wallow in evil. You have only to look around to see that I speak true. The PoE proves that some gods don't exist, but it has nothing to say about me. Conclusion: Firstguy (who styles himself "Con" even though he went first) undertook to prove that gods do not exist. He fielded three arguments against my existence. Probability: He said nothing persuasive, or even relevant, about probability. Stupid Design: He failed to consider my purpose. Since Firstguy doesn't get to dictate purpose to god, his design argument fails utterly. Problem of Evil: Some gods obviously don't exist. There is no sport in proving that obviously non-existent gods don't exist. Such arguments have no relevance to those of us who do exist. Firstguy issued the challenge and argued first. He has the burden of proof. But all of his arguments fail completely. The resolution is refuted. Vote Pro. (I'm "Pro," even though I'm arguing second.)---[1] Ezra Pound. http://www.kansaspoets.com...