Atheism or Theism

=====> Introduction <======I thank my partner for his opening arguments. He barely touched any of my arguments, though he did make a few points worth noting in this rebuttal round.=====> Rebuttal <======My partner notes Stephen D. Unwin's attempt at showing the probability of God; unfortunately this is a huge error on his part: (1) It is an appeal to authority [1] and (2) My partner cut Unwin's quote short. This is the full quote: "this number has a subjective element since it reflects my assessment of the evidence." [2] So, how do we weigh the evidence? Simple: The Burden of Proof is on the theist to show that God exists. Remember, the BoP is ALWAYS on the person affirming God's existence; not the other way around. Therefore, we can weigh the atheist/theist argument to see which position is most probable; and in my biased opinion, I believe that Atheism is the most probable--especially because my partner refuted absolutely nothing. Presupposition of Atheism My partner does not refute this at all; therefore, I ask that you extend this argument. This argument, though untouched, does make an interesting point: It is justified to reject the belief in a God. Because God wants us to "love him maximally", it logically follows one must believe in a being in order to "love one maximally." RRC2) Demographics of Theism My opponent states that the demographics of religious belief point against a god. This makes no sense. First, we do not know if any of those belief systems are true. Perhaps Christians are correct, or ancient Babylonians, or Muslims. Perhaps none of them are. Perhaps the true religion has not been handed down to us yet. Perhaps God is not in direct contact with us at all. To quote my opponent,For those that do not understand, let us point to this argument map [3]: This actually is incriminating to my opponent's argument. This argument may be better formulated by Dr. Theodore Drange [4]: Consider, first, these two definitions: The gospel message = the following three propositions: (a) There exists a being who rules the entire universe. (b) That being has a desire for us to worship him(c) That being has a desire to come to him in repentance. Situation S = the situation of all, or almost all, humans since the time of Jesus (or a certain point) coming to believe both all three propositions of the gospel message by the time of their physical death. Using the above definitions, ANB may be formulated as follows: (A) If the God of cassic Theism were to exist, then he would have caused situation S to obtain. (B) But situation S does not obtain. (C) Hence, the God of classic Theism does not exist. It is interesting to note the reply of the Christian that he was debating: [5] I have to confess that, as far as I am concerned, it presents a formidable challenge to those Christians who hold to the premises outlined by Dr. Drange. I cannot imagine how an Arminian Christian would answer the challenge he presents. Remember: I have shown that the demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism; hence, there is a better probability of atheism over Theism.RRC3) Theism predicts a different Universe In my final argument, I argued that Theism predicts an entirely differnt universe we find ourselves in. It is interesting to note my parnter's reply: "I agree with my opponent that an atheistic/natural universe could predict our universe." Because of this, I believe I have already won this debate; namely, I have shown once again that atheism is more probable than Theism. My partner asks a ridiculous question:How can you possibly predict what a theistically-created universe would be like if you cannot comprehend the mind of the creator? I must concede that we cannot--however, we must consider the evidence given to us by this "perfect-wise-Creator" and must pause to wonder "Why would a perfect, sinless God be deceptive?" If there is a God, he certainly would never be deceptive! For now, the evidence points to the fact that there is probably no God. Sidebar note As side notes:Premise 3, "Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false." Absence of evidence does not equal absence of existence.My partner is correct--absence of evidence=/=absence of existence. Remember how I defined extraordinary claim. I am even wondering if my partner even bothered to read my opening response. " Once upon a time, the idea that disease was caused by animals so small we couldn't see and that preyed upon us would have been regarded as insane." This is correct, and until that evidence was presented to them, they had all the justification for rejecting it. Remember proposition S: If God loves all humanity, then he would want to have a relationship with each and every human (thus the term, all-loving); how can God be all loving and neglect to give us evidence of His existence? Likewise, how can God be all-loving and let us believe lies? It makes virtually no sense. Conclusion 1) My partner refuts almost nothing what I said.2) In my partner's opening response, he has not shown at all any probable evidence pointing to God's existence,3) I have shown that the demographics of Theism predict Atheism over Theism._________________________________Reference http://www.debate.org...