The God of Classic theism is real

here's your "run for your money to this debate":) My opponent as one barley formed contention against me. I will prove how wrong he is by formulating an argument that is "logically valid" and "simultaneously dismantle" his arguments. My C1: My opponents main argument revolves around circular logic. He ever so graciously provides a snobby picture to illustrate it. Here's MY circular logic explanation: "But why don't you believe the Bible? " BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS BOGUS "But how do you know the bible is bogus? " BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION "But how can you be sure of evolution? " BECAUSE DARWIN ACCEPTS EVOLUTION AND DENIES THE BIBLE As you can see, my opponent Is also using circular logic. Here is nother way he is ALSO using it. .. He said "Even if evolution weren't true, that would not prove that God exists. However, evolution is most certainly true. .. " OK, even if evolution WAS true, THAT wouldn't prove that God DOESN'T exist. So his whole attack on my C1 falls because it fails to attack the existence of God, because the only "attack" he has to "deny" God's existence, is Evolution. He said "Even if evolution weren't. .. most certainly true. ", however, the converse is also true. My C2:"This isn't even an argument. " This is debate slang for " don't have any arguments. " Actually, it IS an argument:) +++++>>>My opponents Case<<<+++++ HIS C1: OK, first off I love your tag line:The Argument From Divine Hiddenness. He goes on to say "The argument from divine hiddenness, also known as the argument from non-belief, seeks to demonstrate the nonexistent of God by pointing out an INCONSISTENCY within the theistic worldview" Who are YOU to challenge God's consistency by your "98% ape" brain standards(HE said it, not me). Just read on in his case. .. " . .. then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. As such, if God existed and God wanted us to know this, then reasonable non-belief should not occur. But reasonable non-belief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist. This, it would seem, entails a contradiction. " How DARE you say what the all knowing God should do? Who do you think you are? ! He has provided an abundance of evidence(i. e. prophets,the bible) which you refuse to recognize. The reason God created us is so we would worship Him through our own FREEWILL! !! And in this section of the debate and also in a few other instances where I will point out later, my opponent is not topical. "But reasonable non-belief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, IF HE DOES EXIST. " The resolution says "The God of Classic Theism is Real" My opponent HAS NOT denied the existence of God with this. Moving on to attack Theodore Drange's syllogism. What backing do you have to this being fact? 1a)I agree b)His son died to save our sins. 1 Corinthians 15:2-4 (New International Version) (2)By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. (3)For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (4)that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, c)agree, but the devil tempts us d)agree, but the devil tempts us 2) NO! we are to believe by our own FREEWILL. How would it be "Believing" if we were forced by Him to believe? Then we'd have no freewill 3)True. Absolutely. Here's why: John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2)He was with God in the beginning. (3)Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (4)In him was life, and that life was the light of men. (5)The light shines in the darkness, BUT THE DARKNESS HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD IT. . :Therefore God exists. Here's the interesting part. "The common religious response to this argument usually alludes to the notion that the ways of God are mysterious. " Nope, not MINE. .. My opponent is saying HIS unbelief in MY belief makes my belief untrue. THIS is circular reasoning. .. If I'm guilty, my opponent is also. Moving on "According to theism, God wants humans to have a relationship with him. Meanwhile, this God has also cloaked himself from the greatest tools and insights of modern science" Well first of all you have to believe in Him. If you don't, then you cant have a relationship with Him. But God really has "also cloaked himself from the greatest tools and insights of modern science". Really? OK fist off he's off topic again, not denying God. But, is my opponent implying that if God would "uncloak" himself that he could UNDERSTAND God? Is my opponent saying that he and the scientific community posses the ability to comprehend the omnipotent, Great and Mighty God. (Whom my opponent FAILS to negate existence of) Here's another example of my opponent's non-topicality: "Surely, any God that would bother to involve himself in the affairs of one primate species in a universe teeming with over 70 sextillion stars is not as inscrutable as all that. " Again, not DENYING God, but I will attack it anyway. God CREATED us, He isn't "bothering" Himself with us. He Loves us and created US to love HIM. . http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov... This tells how the earth is tilted and gives measurements. THIS COULDN'T JUST HAPPEN! ! If I put a stack of newspaper in the backyard, it will NEVER be the same stack of newspaper on a windy day. NEVER. Not without Intelligent intervention. So the world isn't moving from Chaos (the big bang) to order. Its moving from order(God creating it) to chaos. Romans 10:9 (New International Version) (9)That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. John 14:6 (New International Version) (6)Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "I have annihilated all of my opponent's current arguments. Unless he can formulate an argument that is logically valid and simultaneously dismantle my argument, then I will have won this debate by default. Lafayette lion, I look forward to your next round. " Done, done, and done. Freeman I look forward to your next round