The existence of the Christian God is logically indefensible.

I thank my opposition for his reply, and will now give my concluding argument. Regarding evil, my opposition stated that as a result of our lack of omniscience, it is impossible to deduce whether any natural disaster or worldly evil such as earthquakes, would cause a greater benefit in the future. I will address this in two ways, firstly that, I would cite J. S. Mill, in that 'Nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another are nature's everyday performances'. He uses the example of a doe burning to death in a forest fire, asking what the possible greater purpose or benefit of this is. Not only this, but I would argue that a God holding the discussed three core principles should not have created a world where an earthquake that kills 100,000 people, or any evil, is necessary, and this shows imperfection, or cruel design by God. Either way the Christian God is flawed and thus logically unsound. On the opposition's argument on free will, I believe it to be intrinsically flawed, as he states that the murderer "still freely chose to murder." However what affected this decision? It is clearly his environment and his own mind, both of which supposedly created by God, and thus his decision was determined by God before his birth, and humans cannot have free will. As to the cosmological argument, I believe my opposition misunderstood my argument, by stating that "nothingness" contains no properties "that means that the causality principle is abolished." My point was not that nothingness brought this about, but simply that as far as we are aware, universal principles are just that - universal. I find it interesting that the opposition states "you are just guessing, and so you must provide proof," yet I must redirect him to the motion at hand. I need not provide logical surety that causality cannot occur external to the universe, as my very point is that we cannot deduce whether this is the case. If we cannot deduce such, having no experience of this, then simply assuming they apply is logical fallacy. Unless the opposition can specifically prove that these laws do apply external to the universe, which is impossible, then this assumption is not a logical defense of God, and relies, as such upon faith which I shall address later in my argument. The irony of my opponents second point on the cosmological argument upon the first premise, is that he referred to his logical explanation of how "something cannot come from nothing," and yet my very point was that we could not be certain whether logical rules such as these applied external to the universe. This contradiction means that this rebuttal cannot apply. On the teleological argument, once again the opposition states that in the time period "that we have been on earth, evolution by the means of natural selection could never have occurred," yet once more does not provide evidence to support this, whereas scientific theories have proven that evolution can have an observable effect in mere "hundreds of thousands of years," [1] compared to the billions of years old the planet is. The fact that scientists have tried "for more than 100 years to create life" is completely irrelevant considering the time scales we are discussing here, as life likely took millions of years to first form, chemicals mixing on a global scale. I must note the oppositions statement that the universe "isn't perfect," yet the very nature of a Christian God requires the three core principles discussed, and thus perfection, so this reveals major contradiction in my opponents argument. His statement that "for all we know, the beauty and order of the universe is exquisite," yet once more this relies on faith, which I shall discuss later in my argument. Regarding the multi-verse, I must state that this is not "entirely guesswork," but based upon genuine empirical proof. [2] [3] On the ontological argument, I would dispute the oppositions rebuttal to my first premise, as although once a maximally great being exists, it is undeniably impossible to remove, it is certainly feasibly possible to prevent anything from characterizing maximal greatness in the first place. Yet is also feasible that a maximally great being existed before these machines, and such a machine before this, and so on, leading this argument to be cyclical, and achieve no ground, thus being invalid. I must also point my opposition to my remaining argument on this subject regarding the lack of external logic. Now, since all of the previous methods of reasonably proving God have been rendered invalid, this only leaves guesswork and faith. My point regarding the teapot analogy was not that on the balance of probabilities it was more likely, which it is clearly not, but simply that it is not a possibility you can entirely rule out, and in the same way people can hold faith in God and it cannot be entirely ruled out. My point was simply that presenting concepts in this way cannot act as logical proof. I do not argue against belief in God from personal experience, as this is not logically binding, and cannot be logically proved, and as such, regardless of its soundness is irrelevant within this debate. Overall then, since the initial flaws inherent within the Christian God still stand, and faith has been shown to be illogical and irrelevant, I must then conclude that the existence of the Christian God is logically indefensible. Thus I urge you to vote with the proposition of this motion. I thank the opposition for his continued efforts and strong arguments, and for the readers of this debate. - Invictus Sources - [1] http://www.pbs.org... [2] http://arxiv.org... [3] http://www.ucl.ac.uk...