It is more probable than it is improbable that a monotheistic and at least Deistic God exist.

Round three defense OutlineI. IntroII. BodyA. AliensB. Infinite regressionsC. Mutually incompatibleD. Minor pointsIII. ConclusionsIV. Sources.I. IntroI will respond to my opponent's round two arguments in order to defend my round one argument. The major points my opponent brought up were aliens, infinite regressions, and mutually incompatible. II. BodyA. AliensAliens would not be God because they would not be supernatural nor would they transcend us. Just as various invading tribes who had access to more advanced weaponry, there is nothing supernatural about the aliens. I don't see any reason to think the aliens would be much different then us, just a few more evolutions and technology. Even if the aliens managed to be much more advanced then us and create some sort of gigantic brain which all humans are part of that alien's imagination like in the movie Inception, this still wouldn't be supernatural. The humongous brain would be created out of living cells that require nourishment. The entity would probably be created via a combination of selective breeding and genetically modified organisms. Yes, we could all be figures of the imagination of a colossal and super intelligent being. Yet, there wouldn't be anything supernatural about the being. Furthermore, the being would need a universe to live within. Since you have both the super intelligent being and our reality, Occam's razor would point to the simpler solution, cut out the super intelligent being and be left with the universe. B. Infinite regressionsMy opponent links to a youtube that is 5 minutes and 15 seconds long entitled : Worst Objection to Theism: Who Created God? By Inspiring Philosophy.First, the video is blatantly bias. By saying this "is the worst objection I've ever heard" with a derogatory tone the narrator loses some credibility. The video then states you will not find it along professional philosophers showing three pictures. This begs the question how many professional philosophers are there? I imagine philosophy would be very difficult to make a living in. Second, the author attaches no names to the professional philosophers. Next, the author repeats the point about this being the worst objection made by a skeptic. Then, the video links to commonsense atheism. Yes, there are many atheists who think that atheism is a personal opinion, that atheists should be quiet and are opposed to new atheists. As Richard Dawkins quotes Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell "believe in belief" in the preface of the God Delusion. Yet, just because an atheist disagrees with another atheist, do we automatically default back to God existing? No, a rational person examines the argument. Here is the website [0]. Here is the argument "This would lead immediately to an infinite regress of explanations. We would need to have an explanation of the explanation, and an explanation of the explanation of the explanation, and an explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation… on into infinity. And thus, we would never be able to explain anything.3" [0]Basically, God is an explanation according to commonsense atheism and expalnations don't need explanations. "The why-regress is a feature of the logic of explanation that many of us discovered as children, to our parents’ cost. I vividly recall the moment it dawned on me that, whatever my mother’s answer to my latest why-question, I could simply retort by asking ‘Why?’ of the answer itself, until my mother ran out of answers or patience…[But] explanations need not themselves be understood. A drought may explain a poor crop, even if we don’t understand why there was a drought; " [0]Yet, if you look at the first comment, there is potent defense of the infinite regressions objections. "I think we should take into account the nature of the explanation. It is true that we do not need to explain the causes of a drought in order to explain its effects, but the drought itself belongs to the same realm as the failed crop, and it remains explainable in principle.This is not the case when God is invoked as an explanation: there is no plausible hope of explaining God, and so it is a sterile explanation.A theory of heat that posits the existence of tiny particles leads to a search for those particles; a theory of heat based on God’s emanations leads nowhere." PieroThink about the crop failure and drought explanation. Crops fail, a scientific hypothesis is formed, a drought caused the crop failure. This is falsifiable since if invasive insects or weeds caused the crop failure this will falsify the hypothesis. Then, scientists can look for physical evidence of what caused the crop failure. After much searching the scientists find the soil is way too acidic. The acidic soil caused the crop failure, falsifying the original hypothesis. Then, the scientists form another hypothesis getting closer and closer to the truth and learning more about the world. Forming a hypothesis that God caused the crop failure leads nowhere. By the very nature of miracles they are unexplainable, there would be no evidence of God causing the crop failure. There would be no way to falsify that hypothesis neither. Since any event that caused the crop failure could be blamed on God's will. Therefore, if we find evidence that the soil is too acidic, again God made the soil acidic. In comparison we learn nothing from the question of who created God. Instead of getting closer to the answer, we get further and further away. Another key point is irreducible complexity and how it combines with the infinite regressions. Let's take the example of a really high tech gadget, a smart phone. Who or what created the smartphone? How was the smartphone created, when, and so on. Well, we could break the smartphone into parts first the hard ware and software. The hardware could be further broken down into buttons, monitor, wireless transmitter, etc. The software was created by designer x,y and z who used gadgets a,b, and c to assist. We could then go all the way back to the first computer and how it was built and so forth. Eventually we would get to who or what created the humans that created the smart phone. The ancestors theoretically could be traced all the way to the first homo sapiens, then before homo sapiens evolved all the way back to the origins of life, the first self replicating molecule. Then, we could trace back to the origins of our planet, sun, solar system, galaxy, universe, and multi-verse. With each step backwards we learn more about our world and get closer to the truth. We could also break down the hardware of the smart phone into elements from the periodic table and atoms. There is also a finite amount of regressions. We cannot go smaller than the atom. Yet, God is the complete opposite. Saying "God created x, y, and z" leads no where. This is infinite regressions. Well who created, God? Who created the being who created God ad infinitum. Do you see the difference between smartphone -> humans -> body system -> organs -> tissues -> cells -> atoms -> end versus God -> creator of God -> creator of creator of God -> creator of creator of creator of God -> creator of creator of creator of creator of God? Another example, the why example. Why did the car swerve? To avoid hitting the rabbit. Why? Because rabbits are sentient beings worthy of our dignity and respect. Why? Rabbits have complex nervous system that allow them to feel pain and empathy. Why? It was to the rabbit's evolutionary advantage to be able to feel pain and empathy. Why? A rabbit that couldn't feel pain would be less likely to survive and produce off spring, same with empathy? Why? Because empathy helped the rabbit be more social, and pain avoid death. Why? Empathy helps the rabbit recognize facial expressions and pain helps making the same mistake over and over again. Why?The rabbit's brain is more attuned to facial expressions with empathy and pain helps avoid the same mistakes which are hazardous to the rabbit like thorns. Why? The brain is able to grow different pathways? Why neutrons in the brain. Why? Evolution. Why? Abiogensis. Why? Big Bang Theory. Why? Multi-verse theory. Why? We don't know yet, this is the current limit of human understanding. Why? Because humans have finite amount of knowledge. Why? Limited brain capacity. Why? Evolution, note in this example this will just go in circles. Yet, this is not the same as the infinite regressions with God. This is circular reasoning. Sooner or later if you ask why enough, the questions will go in circles. A simpler example. Do your homework! Why? Cause I told you so. Why? Because I'm the boss. Why? Cause I told you so. Why? Because I'm the boss. Why? Cause I told you so. in brief, who created God leads to infinite regressions, scientific explanations lead to truth and answers, and asking why enough will sooner or later lead to circular reasoning. C. Mutually incompatible" In addition, omnipotence does not mean God can do anything. For example, God cannot lie. God cannot sin." 812I'm pretty sure this is exactly what omnipotence means. If God cannot lie nor sin then God cannot be omnipotent. Just look at the definition of power. "ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something." [1] God cannot be all powerful if God cannot lie nor sin. D. Minor pointsI never claimed evolution disproved God. Evolution offers a viable alternative to creationism. I've run out of characters.III. ConclusionsAliens would not be God since they would not be supernatural. God leads to infinite regressions alternatively scientific questions have a natural end. God is not all powerful because God cannot lie nor sin. Evolution offers an alternative to creationism. IV. Sources.0. http://commonsenseatheism.com...1. http://www.dictionary.com...