The God of Classic theism is real

I thank my antagonist for challenging me to this debate. Hopefully he will find it as entertaining as I do. In order to win this debate all I need to do is show why my opponent's arguments fail. However, I will go the extra mile by providing an argument for the plausibility of God's nonexistence. =====> A Critique of Lafayette_Lion's Opening Arguments <===== My opponent's main arguments (almost all of them) are clearly reliant upon circular reasoning. This type of erroneous thinking is best surmised in the following picture: http://theframeproblem.files.wordpress.com... Nevertheless, I will address the arguments one by one. Contention 0: John 1:1-5 demonstrates the existence of God. "John 1:1-5… clearly defines the existence of God." As stated earlier, this assertion is reliant upon circular logic. [1] Contention 1: If God does not exist, then who created us all? The premise of this argument is based on a false dichotomy. [2] Even if evolution weren't true, that would not prove that God exists. However, evolution is most certainly true. We know for a fact that humans and all other animals are related in terms of their ancestry. Among other strands of evidence for evolution, all animals share the same genetic coding, DNA. And we can use this code to compare the genetic sequences of any two species of animal in order to determine how closely related they are. As it turns out, humans share 98 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees [3], and we share less with our more distant cousins, elephants. Moreover, all of this genetic evidence helps form a beautiful hierarchical family tree among living creatures. We (homo sapiens) are but one twig on that tree, and we are related with every other living organism on the planet, including bacteria and plants. Contention 2: God is God This isn't even an argument. =====> The Case Against God <===== Contention 1: The Argument From Divine Hiddenness The argument from divine hiddenness, also known as the argument from non-belief, seeks to demonstrate the nonexistence of God by pointing out an inconsistency within the theistic worldview. I will only offer a brief sketch of it for now in this opening round. If God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. As such, if God existed and God wanted us to know this, then reasonable non-belief should not occur. But reasonable non-belief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist. This, it would seem, entails a contradiction. The philosopher Theodore Drange sets forth a formal version of the argument in the following syllogism: 1. If God exists, God: (a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die; (b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die; (c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and (d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants. 2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1) 3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die. .: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3) (Drange [4]) As can be plainly seen, the presence of reasonable unbelief presents a very real problem for the existence of God. The common religious response to this argument usually alludes to the notion that the ways of God are mysterious. However, this proposition flies in the face of the central doctrines surrounding theism. According to theism, God wants humans to have a relationship with him. Meanwhile, this God has also cloaked himself from the greatest tools and insights of modern science. Surely, any God that would bother to involve himself in the affairs of one primate species in a universe teeming with over 70 sextillion stars is not as inscrutable as all that. [5] ::Conclusion:: I have annihilated all of my opponent's current arguments. Unless he can formulate an argument that is logically valid and simultaneously dismantle my argument, then I will have won this debate by default. Lafayette_Lion, I look forward to your next round. ::References:: 1. http://www.iep.utm.edu... 2. http://www.iep.utm.edu... 3. http://www.scientificamerican.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.space.com... Best, Freeman