There is no god/gods

My Rebuttals: 1) In response to the first paragraph of Con"s argument: the god of the gaps means not that God is non existent, because part of a deity's attributes is its ability to be omnipotent and omnipresent, but the god of the gaps means that God is not necessary for explaining events, like clouds or the movement of the sun and stars 2) In response to the second and third paragraphs of Con"s argument: this is an anthropocentric argument. The same could be said by any other intelligent life form, formed under other circumstances. That is to say that, if there was another form of intelligent life on another planet that is Sulfur based, has a gas-based circulatory system and must breathe in Argon gas to live they would be praising their Sulfur God for having created their universe and world is such a perfect way that they are able to live, for if their was just a little bit less Argon in their atmosphere they"d all be dead. There is no way to say that they way life exists here is the only way it can exist elsewhere, on different planets, or in different universes. The same could be said for the "Mathematical constant" argument that is often used by theists, that maybe their is life in alternate universes with different laws, assuming that all of mathematics is constant, which has even come close to being proven. 3) In response to the fourth paragraph of Con"s argument: atheism is a lack of believe in an almighty and intelligent creator/creators, this leaves atheists to be a widely diverse group. Atheism does explain where our world came from, though most believe it along with the rest of the universe originated with the Big Bang, however, this belief isn"t mandatory for an atheist, nor does it explain where all of the matter in the big bang came from. There are endless explanations of the origin of matter and energy, being an atheist merely means that you refuse to believe any explanation that involves a deity of any kind. In addition, I have yet to talk to a theist who could give me a satisfactory answer to the question "Well, if a God or gods created the universe, then who created God or the gods?" The answer is usually either "he/they have always been" or "he/they created themselves". The problem with this is that it makes as much logical sense as saying "the matter of the big bang created itself" or that it has always been there. The point is that no person, theist or atheist, can answer that question satisfactorily, they do not know, they cannot know, not for a very long time if ever (unless theism is correct and you could simply ask God/the gods). Whatever the answer for the origin of matter and energy is, it will likely be very astounding and well beyond our initial grasp as mere humans, and as of now, the only difference between theists and atheists on that matter is that theists believe the answer will involve a deity and atheists believe it will not. 4) In response to the fifth paragraph of Con"s argument: this is possible, I agree. But this is where faith comes in. Yes, faith, atheists must have it to. Faith to believe that God is a twisted tyrant who would ever think of hiding proof of his existence. Gods of almost every religion require their subjects to believe only in them, so why would they, if they are indeed not inherently malevolent, leave behind very little if any evidence to support their existence, command their subjects to believe in them and no other god, cut off regular communication with them, then punish them for losing faith in their existence? Of course, the previous paragraph isn"t a sufficient rebuttal if you believe in a god/gods that either don"t punish you for losing faith in them or were never intended as benevolent in the first place. If that is the case, refer to the paragraph before that. 5) In response to the sixth paragraph of Con"s argument: this argument was intended for fundamentalist Jews, Christians, and Muslims who take that portion of the holy books literally and not for the average person, or even the average Jew/Christian/Muslim. Additionally, by stating that "It is clear that a lot of the bible isn"t completely correct", Con is actually assisting my point. Review: In my previous argument I argued three points and rolled them into one because it is hard for me at least to separate these when I get started on them, and collectively, they provide the backbone for my atheism. First I made the point that religion is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, a statement that can"t be proven or disproven either way. The problem with this is that any number of ridiculous and inaccurate statements are also unfalsifiable hypotheses. Secondly, I delved into the fact that, as far as I can tell, God is not necessary for the origin of life and the universe by assaulting the god of the gaps. Thirdly, I addressed the issue of lack of evidence. This was the "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" which, I admit, doesn"t stand well alone, but the good thing for me is that is was not. Finally, I made an attempt at disproving fundamentalist abrahamic faiths by pointing out logical and scientific fallacies in the one section they have in common: the Torah/Old Testament/Taurat. Future Rebuttal: As this is a short debate, I would like to address this point that Con may present after my last chance to speak has passed: "Morality is Objective": God/gods are not essential for morality to exist. Evolutionary atheists believe that morality is actually just empathy being applied. That is to say, we feel empathy for other humans and other living things, and therefore we don"t do things that we wouldn"t want that to be done to us ourselves, and the reason we are able to step into other"s shoes like that is because of empathy. Empathy could"ve evolved to promote generation: life always want to pass their genes on to the next generation and to preserve their species, so they don"t do harm to other humans readily (at least not for the most part), to protect their own genetic lineage. This is why scientific studies point to the fact that people are more inclined to aid those that are more similar to themselves: it is a sign to our brains that they have more similar genetics (there are other factors involved in this, but this is one of them). For more about atheistic/evolutionary/subjective morality refer to the "Source" section. I could address some more points but I lack the motivation to go to that much trouble and would rather just let Con speak. Major Point #2 "Logical Fallacy": This will be the final point that I would like to make. As religion has already been proven previously in my argument to not be supported by empirical evidence, or insufficient empirical evidence, we as people can take a step back and look at the concept of religion as an entire picture. God or the gods are said to have always been or had created themselves and now they"ve created the world and everything in it and having ultimate knowledge of this universe they"ve created, they live forever, see and know everything, punish you for being naughty, sometimes, at things that wouldn"t be considered negative if that god was removed from the equation, and reward you for living a life subject to control by pastors and preachers, rely on animal sacrifice, faith and chastity, and where said believer was born and what family he/she was born to and are ultimately limited to the knowledge of the people of their time. When someone looks at that after they"ve realized there is no actual proof for this being(s) existence and after they"ve removed their many cultural bias" they realize that that claim is just as absurd as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. This is because their is equal evidence for Santa and God, the only difference is that as you grow up nobody around you is debating the existence of Santa Claus in a heated manner, no one is claiming that Santa demons are possessing them, no one hold sermons for St. Nick, and no presidents have been sworn in with their hand on "The Night Before Christmas". Conclusion: In conclusion, I"d like to reiterate my previous statements that I do not believe I nor anyone can disprove God(s) completely, I recognize it takes faith (though I personally believe it takes less) to be an atheist, I don"t wish to disparage or discriminate against anyone for their faith in any god, and I therefore hope that no one took offense to what I"ve just said. I"d like to thank the readers for taking time out of their day to read and assess this debate, and I"d like to turn the gavel back over to Balacafa to resume and conclude his arguments. VOTE PRO. Source: More on atheist morality: http://wps.prenhall.com...