There is no evidence for the existence of a supreme deity.

In response to my opponent’s claims: Argument from revelation My opponent says we are at a standstill, but we simply are not. The shepherd children claimed that there source of knowledge for the miracle of the sun was god or a supreme deity of some sort, and the pro has given no evidence or reasoning for why they should not be trusted. So, because the children were proven to be reliable in their claim that a miracle will happen, their claim on how they obtained that information must too be considered reliable (unless evidence was given that it should not, but this is not the case). So, my opponent’s argument here falls. Argument from miracle or testimony The pro says that many books and pamphlets have been written, yet does not cite or reference a single one. Because his claim that “there have been many books and pamphlets and eye witness testimonies claiming that people have been abducted and anally probed by aliens. Most of these people come from very diverse backgrounds and most have no reason to lie about their supposed experiences” has nothing to support it, it is simply invalid and can be ignored. Books concerning racial inferiority are a matter of opinion, as it is someone’s opinion that, for example, Jews and gypsies are less human than others. Books written about events can actually be taken as real, external evidence, but you are right, opinionated books cannot always be. “These people certainly are not lying but that does not mean that they are right or that they have brought any external evidence to light.” Correct, but these people are not stating concrete truths or events – they are stating ideas and opinions. The pro keeps attacking my claim that historical references are not evidence, but then I ask, what is? If historical references from non-biased groups and people are not allowed to be considered then I do not know how anyone could possibly use evidence from something that happened in the past. The pro cannot just discount evidence because he thinks that there is some possibility of them being incorrect even though I have shown them to be valid and accurate – he must first prove why they would be incorrect (most likely through demonstrating that those who wrote them were bias or contradictory). I will not respond to his claim on evolution as I am busy and do not want to spend the time. Even if he is correct, it really does not affect this debate. _________________________ I now defend my claims Morality My opponent attempts to take down my rebuttal simply by stating “You have by no means shown that altruism and morality are different. You have brought no external evidence to prove your claim.” In Round three, I actually did show the clear difference between altruism (or the instinct to help others) and morality. My evidence was C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. The pro cannot refute an argument by just saying that it doesn’t prove anything – he has to show why or how it doesn’t prove anything. So the pro concedes this. Creation Once again, my opponent tries to dismantle my claim by simply saying that I have not shown anything. I did in fact show something – that the definition of god shows that he does not need a creator and that he creates everything. I did not make the definition fit my theory, I quoted it exactly from dictionary.com, as was cited. Again, my opponent lacks reasoning behind his argument. Because the pro did not take down my argument of everything needing a creator except for something that inevitably created everything, and because I showed that a supreme deity would be that thing and therefore must exist, I win this argument. Impossibility of disproving existence The pro is correct, the voters will decide if I have brought sufficient evidence to win this debate. _________________________ Voters: Who had better conduct? I will let voters decide. Who had better spelling and grammar? I will let voters decide. Who made more convincing arguments? Vote Con. It is clear that I have won this due to my opponent’s inability to respond to my claims in a factually-based, non-opinionated manner and his inability to defend his own arguments, which I have taken down. Who used the most reliable sources? My opponent had many claims that were not backed up by sources, so I urge Con. However, the voters can decide for themselves. _________________________ I thank my opponent for what has been a very interesting debate, and wish him luck in the voting rounds. Thank you.