The God of Classic theism is real

My opponents last round was also littered. I find it interesting that my opponent repeatedly bashes me for using Bible verses and being "almost entirely void of logic." I'M the one void of logic? Really? Yet my opponent has waited TWO ROUNDS and STILL not given my ANYTHING to attack that is COINCIDING with the resolution! "The God of Classic theism is real" Please present me an argument that DENIES God! Brief road-map, I'll be defending my case and attacking my opponents case My opponent didn't attack my newspaper argument. "http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...... This tells how the earth is tilted and gives measurements. THIS COULDN'T JUST HAPPEN!! If I put a stack of newspaper in the backyard, it will NEVER be the same stack of newspaper on a windy day. NEVER. Not without Intelligent intervention. So the world isn't moving from Chaos (the big bang) to order. Its moving from order(God creating it) to chaos." My opponent discredits My arguments by saying they are "Void of logic" and "Littered with bible verses." "Void of logic." I love it:) I'M the one void of logic? Read on... "The premise of this argument is based on a false dichotomy. [2] Even if evolution weren't true, that would not prove that God exists. However, evolution is most certainly true. We know for a fact that humans and all other animals are related in terms of their ancestry. Among other strands of evidence for evolution, all animals share the same genetic coding, DNA. And we can use this code to compare the genetic sequences of any two species of animal in order to determine how closely related they are. As it turns out, humans share 98 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees [3], and we share less with our more distant cousins, elephants. Moreover, all of this genetic evidence helps form a beautiful hierarchical family tree among living creatures. We (homo sapiens) are but one twig on that tree, and we are related with every other living organism on the planet, including bacteria and plants". -Freeman OK, but according to my opponent "I NEVER ARGUED THAT EVOLUTION DISCREDITS THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Moreover, my opponent's argument in this section has already been demolished. Nothing else needs to be written on this topic." His ONLY ATTACK on my C1 was evolution existing, so my C1 STILL STANDS despite my opponents objection. Read the all caps, "I NEVER ARGUED..." OK, then your attack on my C1 doesn't discredit my C1, because I said "If God doesn't exist then who created us all?" In attacking My C2. Lets see...In response to this my opponent says:"This isn't even an argument.",and "I admire my opponent's fantastic ability to form delightfully tautological and self-sustaining arguments. However, it would be improper of me not to point out that these modes of argumentation fail to meet certain standards of reasonableness." THIS proves my point! THIS CONTENTION is what you are supposed to be debating! This says "God is God", coinciding with the resolution, and therefore requiring an attack. Nevertheless Freeman has failed to attack my C2 because it is "tautological"[1] and "self sustaining". If arguments aren't meant to be self sustaining, then apparently my opponent means one's OWN arguments are supposed to uphold and agree with ones opponent's arguments, a practice he has adopted in this debate, as I have proven above in reference to his attacks on my C1 and C2. "As far as I can tell, my opponent did present one minor objection to the syllogism I have laid out, so I will address it briefly." What do you call this??? "1a)I agree b)His son died to save our sins... 3)True. Absolutely. Here's why: John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2)He was with God in the beginning. (3)Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (4)In him was life, and that life was the light of men. (5)The light shines in the darkness, BUT THE DARKNESS HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD IT. .:Therefore God exists." I will expand upon my arguments on #2 and 3 2)"If God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him... God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist." WHO do you think you ARE to say this. How DARE you say what the all knowing God should do? According to my opponent, believing is apparently a forced matter, or that God should FORCE us to believe in Him. Belief:"confidence; faith; trust"[2]. He goes on to say that "If God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him." Belief requires cooperation from the person beleiving. God provided an abundance of evidence i.e. prophets and the Bible, which YOU refuse to acknowledge. 3)This argument makes NO sense. Its OBVIOUSLY true. They refuse to acknowledge the Bible, God's prophets (i.e. Isaiah, John the Baptist, Elisha), and more importantly His Son Jesus. God wants all men(people) to believe in Him before they die, because if they don't they'll go to Hell. I don't believe in gravity. I deny all proof, reject the men who tell me I'm wrong, and denounce Sir Isaac Newton as a liar ad a lunatic. Even the existence of it since God created the earth has no effect on me. Its all bogus. This is an example of why proof doesn't always guarantee belief. Proof is inevitable, but I can still deny it. #) is to make defending/attacking easier This is where it gets very interesting: 1)"The second premise of the syllogism has nothing to do with free will or its negation." Either one has free will or not 2)"If God exists and wants all humans to believe this before they die, then he could appear before the world in order to demonstrate his existence. According to the Bible itself, God did this with Moses on Mt. Sinai and he also revealed himself to other people through Jesus. So, even from a biblical perspective, God could bring about a situation whereby everyone believed in him without compromising their free will." Now my opponent earlier said: "If God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. As such, if God existed and God wanted us to know this, then reasonable non-belief should not occur. But reasonable non-belief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist. This, it would seem, entails a contradiction." Now, by reading both arguments thoroughly, one should see the contradiction easily. Paragraph #2 says Reasonable unbelief is warranted because of lack of evidence of His existence, and because God "should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. My opponent also said God is "mysterious" and should reveal himself. But paragraph #1 says God could "appear before the world in order to demonstrate his existence. According to the Bible itself, God did this with Moses on Mt. Sinai and he also revealed himself to other people through Jesus. So, even from a biblical perspective, God could bring about a situation whereby everyone believed in him without compromising their free will." #2 Says He's mysterious, #1 says He's revealed Himself. Neither DENY God's existence, which is what my opponent is supposed to be doing. As one can see, my opponent cannot ATTACK God in His next round because then i will only have 1 round to defend. My opponent admires my ability to create self sustaining arguments...thank you. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com... John 3:16- "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.