The God of classical theism is real.

I thank twsurber for accepting my challenge. However, I must admit that I am rather disappointed with his last round. It suffers from a serious lack of effort. =====> Why I Am Still Not A Christian <===== :: Evolution and Creationism:: "Evolution and Creation are models that cannot be repeated in a test, therefore people are free to choose which they will accept." - twsurber I'm not sure why my opponent is bringing up this point about creationism since I have already written that evolution does not logically discredit the existence of God. But now that he has brought up the subject, allow me to give some input. 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 [1], and we share less with our more distant cousins, elephants. This process of comparative DNA testing can be done with any two species of animals. Moreover, all of this genetic evidence forms a beautiful hierarchical family tree. 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 1: The Evidential Argument From Evil My opponent's assertion that suffering is the result of sin is not only unfounded, it simply misses the point of this section. Even if I were to grant the rather dubious theological contentions that my opponent is assuming, then his assertion that suffering is the result of sin still cannot withstand scrutiny. We know for a fact that suffering could not have been caused by the sins of humans because suffering and death predate the emergence of Homo sapiens. For hundreds of millions of years, billions of different creatures have experienced the cruelness of life as they worked their way through the war of nature. [2] As stated earlier, all of this evidence points to the conclusion that there are probably no superintending forces that work on humanity's behalf. Contention 2: The Argument From Divine Hiddenness "Simply because people refuse to believe that God exists, does not mean the He doesn't. It merely means they refused to accept that God existed." - twsurber I'm afraid that my opponent doesn't seem to understand the argument. Consequently, he went on to create a rather irrelevant analogy with the Country of Eritrea. The premise of the argument is not that God couldn't exist because people don't believe in Him. Obviously, that would be an absurd hypothesis. The argument contends that if God existed and wanted people to believe in him, then unbelief should not occur. And since unbelief does occur, then God probably doesn't exist. Moreover, the argument has been formulated according to the rigors of logic. My opponent simply can't deny the conclusion if it follows logically from the premises. In order to show why the argument fails, he must show why one of the premises is unsound. 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) Contention 3: The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit This argument went completely unchallenged. How unfortunate… ::Conclusion:: I'm really at a loss for words at the end of this second round. My opponent has said almost nothing of relevance that pertains to this debate. Instead, he has simply decided to quote random Bible verses and advance illogical rebuttals to the arguments I have already put forth. Moreover, giving a list of arguments is not the same as actually making them. If twsurber thinks that one of the various cosmological or ontological arguments is valid, then he must argue that much in his next round, so that I give it a proper critique. Hopefully, the next round will be more promising. ::References:: 1. http://www.scientificamerican.com... 2. Youtube video http://www.youtube.com...