Atheism or Theism

Thank you for your swift reply. As I was reading my partners arguments, I do not believe he fully understands the arguments I put forth. I feel that he has made some mistakes that could cost him the debate.-->Defense<-- I. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence This argument is an attempt to justify atheism. It shows that atheism is justified because of the lack of evidence. My partner's main problem is that it is arbitrary; moreover, he claims that I don't understand the nature of evidence. Evidence is support of a proposition. The proposition is that "God exists." Because of the lack of support of such a proposition, we are justified in concluding that such a God does not exist When I say "there is no extraordinary evidence for God's existence", I am saying that there is not enough support for this proposition. As my partner states, "strong evidence is evidence that makes teh proposition far more likely than not." The problem is there is no such evidence for God's existence. Finally, my partner cites teh Bible as evidence. How do we test something that is personal? As far as the TAG argument, I have showed that it is unconvincing at all. He cited different "proofs" but without even defending those arguments, hence, we should drp them. My partner states that "according to KRForuner, there is extraordinary evidence for Theism", yet what is this "exraordinary evidence"? He hasn't stated, nor defended any. My partner is an atheist. Let's consider the different gods that he does not believe in (remember, the definition of atheism is non-belief in God): The Muslim god, Allah; The ancient Egyptian gods: Osiris, Ra, and Isis; The Hindu god, Vishnu; The Buddhist god, Buddha; and The Greek god, Zeuse. Why is it that my partner dismisses these gods without proper ado? Because there is no evidence for such beings to exist. That is why "I contend that you and I are both atheists; the only difference is that I dismiss one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." [1]II. Incoherency of GodMy partner accuses me of a straw-man fallacy. However, I will show that my partner's defense is inadaquet and the argument is anything but straw-man. Let's review my partner's statement of faith from round 1:There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.As far as ineffiable, I do apologize. I simply copied and pasted from a previous debate [2] in which God was discribed as ineffiable. Second, my partner defined God as most loving. To say that God must not keep any record of wrong is not what I say, nor is it what you say, but what St. Paul says:"It [agape]is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs." 1 Corinthians 13:5 My partner accuses me of the fallacy of equivoation here. Either my partner needs to define agape as keeping record of wrong (which contradicts 1 Corinthians), or he needs to define a just God and one who punishes his Creation as not keeping records of wrong (which is absurd because if you punish one, you need to have a proper reason; hence, keeping a record of wrong). Remember, my definition of agape comes not from me, nor my partner, but from the Bible itself. I believe we can make my argument into a syllogism: If God is agape, then he does not keep any record of wrong (1 Corinthians 13:5) God is agape (1 John 4:8) Therefore, God does not keep any record of wrong. Please do forgive the broken link. Try this link here http://tinyurl.com... Furthermor, his defense still is inadaquet. Because God is holy, he cannot look upon sin; because he is just, he must therefore punish sin. Therefore, God cannot simply "forgive" sin. (this is why the death of Jesus is important in Christian theology). Consequently, God is incoherent. Conclusion I conclude that atheism is much more probable than Theism. TReferences1. Stephen Roberts quote. 2. Debate found here http://www.debate.org...