It is Logical to Assume That a God Exists

It seems my opponent has chosen to not give a final round case for the most part. the bulk of his round 3 post was quoting me from this debate and from the comment section witch is not supposed to be considered in the debate. What little he did give as a 'response' I shall address now. Let me remind all to look above and read the resolution to this debate. 'It is Logical to assume. .. .' ; When dealing with what to 'assume' this is not a debate about evidence, or definitive proof, it is about what is the rational choice to believe in the absence of that definitive evidence for one way or the other. And I have shown we use Occam's Razor when we come to this point. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.xs4all.nl... . http://science.howstuffworks.com... Could I provide arguments for 'proof', sure . http://www.intelligentdesign.org... but going into that would be like starting a whole different debate. It shouldn't interest any of us hear at debate. org anyway for we know that and given 'evidence' can be viewed in a different perspective. many out there have even abandoned the very thought of accepting anything as provable, that it could not even be proven that anyone else exist, that the only thing proved is 'I think therefore I am'. What should concern us is what your going to think in the absence of that unattainable evidence for two opposing theories. which of the two is more logical to assume? its the one that takes less assumptions in itself (Occam's Razor). My opponent did nothing to address my point about Occam's Razor, witch is a shame considering it was is was the final round. Instead the closest he came to opposing the point was 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ' Make no mistake though, its just as extraordinary to claim there is no god as is to claim there is . http://www.earthage.org... . http://www.youtube.com... as you can see from the video, its unbelievable to think Richard Dawkins is ever going to win that first single cell organism. And if we were to learn that it was fact that somehow all 250 of those slot machines lined up with the right cells in right order, it would be rather irrational of us to not believe it was rigged (video 2). . http://www.youtube.com... The thing you could expect the Ocean 13 crew to translate metaphorically into what could rig the casino of life is a God. You can make one assumption that the machines were rigged by god, or you can make 250 assumptions for how each slot machine turned out by chance, and that's just the first life form. My opponent states its logical to assume against something if there is no evidence for it; well that's only true if doing so takes less assumptions. Why do so many people say they've seen the 6-legged horse? you could make one assumption 'there is a six-legged horse' or you make many to explain why all these people are lying, crazy, or neither but still wrong. In this case it take less assumptions that there is a God then for there being none. Stone paradox: The only blasphemy against rationality is made by my opponent for asking the stone question. Its the closest I can imagine to trying to semantically explain away the existence of the all powerful god. 'what does a triangle look like with 4 sides' just because its a question doesn't make it not nonsense. even asking it shows I have somehow failed at grammar or logic. if I had not then I would know that what I am thinking is not a triangle, it is a square, or what I am thinking of is 3 sides and not 4. Likewise with the stone paradox what you are thinking in your question is either and all powerful god that can make himself not all powerful should he chose to, or your not referring to an all powerful god at all. Indecently voting audience to take note my opponent appeals to others to start debating for him by asking for help in the comment section 'I know this logical-fallacy, but I can't remember the name. Could someone please point it out in the comments? '. this should be considered ether a breach of conduct or reflective of his own weak argument skill. perfect: My opponent fails to understand what is being refereed to as perfect. God is still perfect by creating. if something is perfect you would expect it would try and spread its perfection. the perfect being can still exist in the not so perfect existence. God remains just as complete weather or not he creates. the act of spreading more existence about does not affect the one creating it or reflect upon how 'compleate' it is. points 3 & 4: It seems my opponent was distracted by my mentioning free will that he failed to even grasp what my argument was. That or he is deliberately ignoring it so he can start a debate over free will and cause and effect, and call that leaving his argument unadressed. For those of you who have any common sense, you probably picked up that my case was about suffering and its good function in our lives. God allow suffering and even invoke it for the sake of the trial it provides if he is truly righteousness, for this reason alone you should vote pro on arguments since Con failed to even recognize this one. But just so that the issue of free will is not left totally alone; read this debate, consider the thoughts it invokes you to think. now read another that's a political debate, consider how the thoughts you think because of that are different. do you think the chemicals in your head would 'domino effect' any differently if you had read the debates in the opposite order? Too often we are faced with the reality to two outcomes are both possible decisions of ours, and like scrimgoeres cat, until there made you would have to consider both valid as true, but what determines the occasions were both are equally possible? all that is left is who you are. If you wish to sulk around believing your such a victim of the chemicals in your body then I of course cant stop you, but the fact is you make choices all the time.