No Gods Exist

While it's true that the topic is not specifically bout biblical morality, You brought up biblical morality as a defense for logic. So I am justified to talk about it because your are too. Killing Jews does not make you an atheist. It makes you psychopath. You and I both know that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god and that's it. If you don't believe me about Hitler, Then you can look into history and find out that he subscribed to the Christian religion. He worked with churches and even made religious quotes in his speech. What you're really saying is that he is not a Christian by your standards. Which is fine, But that doesn't make him an atheist because he still believed in The Christian God. You said: "I am saying, Raping is wrong just because it is wrong. PERIOD. " Here, You are arguing for a moral absolute. Morals are not absolute, But rather particular. Even if I granted you moral absolutism, It still wouldn't prove any god, Let alone the Christian god. For all we know, Naturalism could produce moral absolutes through evolution. In fact, Science has good evidence that at least some of our morals do come from evolution. You said: "uhhh, No. He is God. What the true God says is the TRUTH. Not an opinion. " That's a bold assertion, You have to provide evidence that this is the case. The problem with this is that you're trying to use morals to prove god and at the same time, Using god to prove morals. It's a circular argument. So I want to take a moment to formally frame your premises. Because you never formally drew a conclusion from them. So technically, I don't know what your conclusion is verbatim. I just know it end up at god somehow. This vagueness is troubling. Premise 1. "There are things which come into existence. " Premise 2. "Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else. " Premise 3. "There cannot be an infinite series of past causes. " Conclusion? "Something must have come into existence that was not brought into existence by something else" I think that's a fair conclusion to draw. However, As I mentioned before, The premises need to be reworded due to their lack of soundness, So lets adjust that. Premise 1. "There are things which are formed. " Premise 2. "Everything which is formed is formed from something else that was formed " Premise 3. "There cannot be an infinite series of smaller formations " Conclusion? "Something must exist that was not formed from smaller formations" This format says the same thing as before, But it takes out the confusing language and present the argument using a proper scientific description of what is going on. I accept this conclusion because all of the premises are sound and contain no false equivocation. However, Nothing in this argument leads me to god. So now I must use this conclusion as another premise to form a conclusion about god or the Christian god. If I only get to god, Then I must assume the further conclusion to the Christian god. So the problem here is that your work is not done yet. You need to connect this conclusion to the Christian god. You can't use your morality argument, Because it relies on god existing. Furthermore, Your initial rebuttal of my argument in round 1 relied on your proving god. So if you're not going to prove a god, Then you need to at least pose a secular rebuttal to my argument. In my humble opinion, I think the only way to connect the Christian god to your conclusion is to rule out naturalism and every other religion that has a candidate god that could do this. You would also have to rule out fringe things like: Magic, Pixies, Collective Universal Consciouness, Etc. This is a tough task. I've tried to present your argument in the best light possible and I even offered ways for you to beat me, So I think I've been fair in my assessment. Your floor.