No believer in any religion that includes an afterlife can provide me with a sound argument

My opponent keeps repeating the same completely invalid information argument. It is getting frustrating because he either knows it is wrong and refuses to acknowledge that or he literally can't see that he is making insane claims. My opponent states that I need to meet his imaginary criteria to refute his claim that information is the underlying principle of reality. This is false, I found a way to refute his claim that worked quite well. Information is just the facts about things and it exists or does not exist based on things existing or not existing, it is not causal. My opponent is fallaciously claiming that the information is responsible for the matter. However, even if he could prove this he then equivocates the word information and it is extremely frustrating that he keeps replying to my pointing out this obvious fallacy by giving a silly string of words that he claims I am calling information. In premise 1 he is using the word information to mean facts or data. In premise 2 he is using it to mean transmission of facts or data. That is not the same thing. Obviously there must be a sender to send information, but information, as my opponent uses the term in premise 1, need not be sent. It can just exist. "In order for him to refute that, he either needed to argue that the universe is not ordered (which is demonstrably false, as already proven), or that chaos can cause order. I stated this in the last round, and he did not argue for either of these. My conclusion still stands." I really don't, but I will point out that the universe started out as a mass at one point and will eventually become nothing due to entropy. All acts and changes increase the disorder of the universe, so your idea that the universe is ordered is somewhat correct, but that is because it started out that way. What you look at and call order(evolution, computers, cookies) is actually a net increase in the disorder of the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org... http://preposterousuniverse.com... I have now, in multiple ways, taken apart your first argument. Please stop repeating this invalid argument. It will never convince me that there is a god because it it not a good argument. The challenge was to convince me, not to repeat something that you find convincing over and over. "If the prime mover had the quality of space, that would be arguing that space caused itself, or that time causes itself, etc." Or space and time always existed and the prime mover just worked within them. As to the bells and whistles, he makes an argument that the prime mover must lack boundaries(which really just means is more simple, so it can be turned into more stuff) and then in his first set of arguments just tacks on the idea that the prime mover constantly supports all of reality and interacts with it. He then also just tacks on the idea that the prime mover can choose to do anything. My opponent wants to argue for an all powerful magician, but he thinks my magic ball is improper? That is rather strange and he tries to straw man it by comparing it to a square circle. "My opponent made a false claim about the link I presented. It is splattered with sources for all of the claims it makes." I thought those were just advertising links that you see on lots of webpages. That said, these sources are not helpful. They are just a bunch of people claiming in video form that biblical scholars believe parts of the bible. I have yet to see a source showing me that the majority of historians believe things like the resurrection or the manner in which the bible claims that the apostles were killed(which still wouldn't prove that those things happened). "There is a difference between a person dying for what they believe to be true, versus dying for what they know to be a lie." " That also means that they continued to be persecuted, tortured, and killed for that lie. Why would anyone do that?" People can convince themselves that they saw things they never saw. Memory is a terrible device to use to keep track of events. Maybe they believed it. https://en.wikipedia.org... That said, I'm not convinced that any of the claims about the apostles are true since they never wrote any of it down and it wasn't written until well after the death of Jesus, if he ever existed. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... That the bible is a little history with a lot of myth thrown is far more likely than either there being an all powerful magician or than people dying for a cause that they know is false. We already know the exodus never happened. I see no reason to also doubt the apostle stories or anything else in this book. http://freethought.mbdojo.com... http://rationalwiki.org... http://www.exitmundi.nl... "I did not argue that Jesus being resurrected automatically proved his other claims about the afterlife. I argued that it was reasonable to trust his words." My rebuttal was devastating to this point of yours and to your points about the apostles. If he rose from the dead, that only proves that he can survive a crucifixion. This would have convinced the apostles that he was god(as this unverifiable and unproven claim has convinced you). They would then be perfectly willing to die for the cause. Personally, I doubt all of the stories though there might have been a particularly charismatic preacher that became a legend. As to evolution, my opponent is enamored with the research of people who are considered to be terrible at what they do by the experts in their fields. Neither of us have the education necessary to be sure of who is right, but it is reasonable to defer to the experts and the experts have seen and rejected the work of these people. The work, by the way, is just writing a computer program that tells them what they wanted it to tell them so they could "disprove" one of the most well proven facts in all of science. The "Ad Hominem" I raised was simply a rational explanation for why people would knowingly push bad science. I do, however, find it interesting that my opponent is so excited to try to show that mainstream historians back up his beliefs, but when the mainstream biologists do not support his beliefs, he goes to fringe biologists who have no credibility in the field. "I fail to understand how the placebo effect can raise someone from the dead. This rebuttal is woefully insignificant."I never called a resurrection a placebo, for that I go to mistaken attribution of causation. "My opponent argued that miracles can't exist, and there will always be a natural explanation. He then ironically argues if a person with his head cut off grew a new one, then a miracle would be the best explanation. This is intellectual hypocrisy." I never said these things. I asked you to give me good evidence, not the same weak garbage I have seen over and over that is easy to explain naturally. I am fairly certain you don't have any good evidence or I would not be getting this stuff that is clearly based in placebo, confirmation bias, and mistaken attribution of causation. "My opponent did not use the evidential argument of evil. He used the logical problem of evil. The logical problem of evil has been refuted for millenia now. It argues that there cannot be evil in a world with a god, but of course philosophers have continuously proven that free will necessitates at least some evil." I did not use the logical problem of evil. The logical problem of evil states that god would prevent all evil. That one is refuted by pointing out that evils can lead to a greater good. The evidential problem of evil has 2 forms. One form relates to the quantity of evil and the other to the quality. I prefer the one relating to its quality. "My opponent would need to justify his stance that evil is that which is painful."That isn't my stance. There are 2 forms of evils in philosophy, moral evils and natural evils. Moral evil would be me punching a guy in the face for no reason. Natural evils are AIDs in a baby or an earthquake. A 4O god would prevent many of the evils we see such as babies being raped or being given AIDs, but he just sits there watching and refusing to help. If you argue that he is allowing free will, well if he interferes with rapist he violates the rapist's free will and if he ignores it he is allowing violation of the rape victim's free will. Either way his choice will end up with a free will violation. If there is an all powerful god he clearly sides with rapists and is thus not 4O. Thus a 4O god cannot exist. "If there was no god, morality would only be relative, and culture could only construct arbitrary laws stating what is "good" or "bad". However, because objective morals exist, there is necessarily a moral lawgiver." This one has been debunked since Plato. Is a law that god gives good because it is a good law or is it good because the god gave it? If the former, then the god is irrelevant to morality and if the later, then morality is arbitrary and just based on the decisions of the strongest being. Objective morality is very simple. Christians define it as obeying their god(who sanctions slavery, rape, murder, and genocide(the flood)) http://www.evilbible.com... http://www.evilbible.com... http://www.evilbible.com... The moral argument is logically unsound and if you look at the morality in your book, quite frankly you would be a monster if you followed it. Secular morality is simple. An act is good or bad in accordance with its effect on the net wellbeing of those impacted by the act and relative to the choices available.(that last bit is you can't use this to justify stopping a gang rape then raping the girl yourself because technically it is a better situation than before) You might not call that objective, but I don't really care if you do