A Theistic God - On Balance - Does NOT Exist

..May the Watch-Maker Help You Keep Time.."Pro still suggests I’m arguing for dualism."Its actually far worse than that now!Here, again, are your first & second premises: 1. The Mind Exists. 2. The Mind is not Physical.In P2 you argue that the Mind is NOT physical. ~BUT~ now you have just said, "My argument is clearly arguing for the mind and brain being the same." ~BUT~ (The brain is physical/material) In P2 you said the Mind wasn't physical. ~BUT~ you continue on to say, "we can conceive of a world in which I exist, but not my consciousness. Then the mind is not identical to the brain. I presented this in my second round and Pro has yet to show why this is doesn’t support P2."~BUT~ you also have just said, "Pro still suggests I’m arguing for dualism," and, "There really is no way I can use such a thing."If you cannot use such a thing, why use it as your Premise(s) and continue to defend and argue it?! There is no question that you are in fact using and arguing Dualism in part of your argument (considering all the above mentioned) at least until you decide to conveniently reject Dualism when you are done using it to try and prop-up Idealism. This is exactly why the Casper the Friendly Ghost paradox is so important and was used to frame the debate. You have clearly gone back-and-forth on this.The odd thing is that you attack your own supporting premises for your argument when you transition to Idealism in P3 - which is self-defeating. Seems like you are willing to use a Dualist position when its self-serving but then reject it when you need to retreat to Idealism and vague forms of Deism."Refuting dualism closes that hole, leading us to idealism.”Okay, but all we got from you was a long tangled diatribe about ideas in which you're trashing and then reconsidering Dualism and its derivatives. I'm interesting in some of the ideas, but a case of "closing the hole" of Dualist positions for Idealism wasn't really clear. P3: In your mind it might have seemed like you were performing an amazing feat of intellectual acrobatics, which somehow rendered your argument valid. But to me, and probably the rest of the readers, it was a mess of self-validating confirmation biases, bifurcation and false dilemmas with no evidence as most of these ideas in your stream of consciousness were trapped in an a priori madness. At one point you even caught yourself considering that "being in the mind of God" would also be like a kind of infinite regress back to Dualism (which made me laugh as it was actually quite funny and clever).Simply put, your transition from a Dualism scaffolding to a firm Idealism to prove a theistic god more probable was not accomplished (not by a long shot). Dropped Arguments:I wanted to avoid these kind of "debate tactics" and indulge in more substance and meaningful conversation. n7, I don't think it was wise to bring up so called "dropped arguments" as you forfeited your rights to rebuttals in the 5th and final round so that you could have immediate rebuttals in your Opening Statement in Round 2. I could return the favor, after I answer all of the arguments that you claimed I dropped, and then point out all the ones you dropped and now cannot answer! But I wont do that to you. I will still answer all the ones you said I dropped and leave you to your own devices."..some point in the “Universe” section, however he never makes it."No - you assumed this was to be a point or an argument. This was a definition that I wanted to make clear that didn't make it on to the definition list during the First Round acceptance. The universe is our entire reality and is all of matter within it. My goal was to avoid weird conversations of Dualism mixed with wacky quantum sub-atomic particle craziness."My argument from the general absurdity of mental be caused or equal to the physical was unaddressed throughout the debate.."UGH - here you are going back-and-forth again."He never responded fully to me in the problem of interaction.." You have selected the hypothesis that we are in the mind of God, so, again, how would we know the difference and what would be the difference between this idea or some other complex simulation? Its to the contrary, you haven't answered question. This is the Casper paradox also."He drops entirely his 2nd and 3rd question.."NO - As a matter of fact, I even re-asked the question: How can we distinguish the difference between something that is truly supernatural from something that doesn't exist at all?Right after re-asking I gave your answer from the previous round. Your Answer: "These questions are irrelevant.""He drops entirely his argument that it’s obvious that there is an objective reality."No - this was only intended for you to think about - if what you're saying is true - we are in the mind of god - then objective reality changes dramatically. You never really addressed it but have only pointed out I didn't push the issue on you."He never addressed my argument that idealism can have mind-body correlations"I'm unaware of any objective evidence that you presented...? Can have, or Does have..? I produced both objective and subjective examples of inductive ways we know the Mind resides in the brain. What did you produce?"He drops all his questions about death and animals."HA! - NO - These were even stated as to be rhetorical questions intended for YOU - which you never addressed!Conclusion:Your ultimate goal should have been to show how this (Idealism) was a better, more convincing argument for the existence for a personal theistic god; a god who is actively involved in Human affairs; answering prayers, healing the sick, etc. Even if Idealism could be convincingly demonstrated, you would still need to show how this renders the existence of a theistic god more probable.I don't think you did this for three primary reasons: 1) It was a mistake to select the Mind-body (Dualism) problem(s) and build these directly into your supporting premises (rather, they were your supporting premises), which you would use to try and prop-up Idealism but later reject (I would argue that Idealism doesn't even follow from Mind-body dualist positions to begin with). 2) Idealism theology isn't the best way to try and prove a theistic god more probable. It creates a closed system which we would never be able to identify, whether true or not, as we would then be "trapped" in the mind of god. In that sense, its not logically provable. Without defending the characteristics of a theistic god, real world differences between deism and theism aren't evident, especially in your brand of Idealism that you have suggested (leading to reason 3).3) When pushed on the issues of the defining characteristics of a theistic god, actively involved in the world, you only offered the idea(s) that 1) God simply chooses not to be actively involved in specific cases in which coincidence and ambiguity could be eliminated. Any offerings of defending a personal god were completely avoided on your part. 2) Or you would offer the idea everything is already in the mind of god, therefore, in every interaction the Maker is actively involved. In both of these cases you use absence of evidence and evidence of absence in whatever way is self-serving but always with no evidence altogether. These are not strong or honest arguments. The funny part is you accused me of ignoring your argument and for not wasting more time on this! Worse, you claimed issues like these to be dropped arguments on my part! I actually didn't give my opinion on the amputee - god chooses not to heal in these cases - idea ... but since you brought it up, I will give you my opinion now: "How kind of God to decide to show us this kind of "tough love" in the cases of amputees so that we can make our own advances in technology and medicine!"God is claimed to heal all kinds of other cases without qualm; cancer, viral infections, organ failure, etc., why God would simply choose not to heal in the very specific cases of amputees is suggestive of a more probable alternative: a theistic god does not exist.Occam's Razor - Principle Of Parsimony:To decide which idea offered - on balance - is more probable, a principle to eliminate the less likely candidate should be employed like Occam's Razor. The Razor is a rational principle of parsimony. The Razor states: "among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. The application of the principle often illustrates where the burden of proof lies in a discussion.The Razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power" [1][2][3].For our debate, which position is the simplest? Which is the more complicated? In cases where coincidence and ambiguity can be eliminated, we find no extraordinary evidence.An all inclusive theory that we are in the mind of God or that there is an all powerful theistic god who exists but simply chooses not to intervene is more complicated with added unnecessary variables. All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one, therefore - on balance - a theistic god does not exist.Closing Statement:Voters, I only ask that debate.org's voting guidelines be followed.n7, please remember the amended format of the debate. Thank you for an interesting debate and for being willing to challenge yourself by taking the opposite opinion despite your genuine position.Cited Source References:[1] Induction: From Kolmogorov and Solomonoff to De Finetti and Back to Kolmogorov JJ McCall - Metroeconomica, 2004 - Wiley Online Library.[2] Foundations of Occam's Razor and parsimony in learning from ricoh.comD Stork - NIPS 2001 Workshop, 2001.[3] A.N. Soklakov (2002). Foundations of Physics Letters (Springer).