On Balance, Naturalism Is More Plausible Than Theism

Once again, there is no discernable organization to my opponent's arguments so I am just going to organize them around a few points and address them. I will note that my opponent has refused to explain what God is and has rehashed old arguments without addressing any of the problems I brought up. He has also not followed the format of the debate at all. I am going to address his arguments for the sake of carrying on the debate, but he has effectively forfeited by skipping a round and messing up the format. He is technically not allowed to say anything do to the exact nature of the rules, but Con was never structured enough in his arguments to be discernably following the format of the debate anyway. I ask that Con not bring entirely new arguments into Round 4 when I cannot address them. CA1: Parsimony Con argues that the problems that apply to God are the same as those that apply to nature. I agree wholeheartedly; in fact, this is exactly what I argued in Round 1. If God and nature suffer from the same explanatory problems that God is an insufficient explanation for nature. It doesn't prove that either is more plausible than the other, but it leads us to favor naturalism because it is based on fewer assumptions. My worldview has the same problems that Con's does but I'm not throwing in extra assumptions that add no explanatory power (God). That fact that theism offers explanations does not mean they are accurate. Con has lost any opportunity to explain what theism offers that naturalism does not without bringing them in on at the end of the last round when I cannot address them, which is clearly abusive. CA2: Natural Requires an Explanation Con clearly does not understand naturalism. Naturalism does not attempt to answer questions of morality and it is not a position on the laws of logic. Naturalists use other philosophical viewpoints to address these issues. More vitally, Con is just assuming that logical absolutes and morality cannot exist without God. He is engaging in mindless assertionism and leaving me with nothing to rebut. His arguments are so scant that I am equally justified in blandly asserting that the laws of logic and morality can be determined experimentally. I'm not going to waste my time writing rebuttals to transcendental arguments he never made when nothing has been substantiated. CA3: Theism Provides an Explanation Zeus provides an explanation for why there is lightning. Just because we don't know something doesn't mean we should immediately resort to the supernatural to explain it. It certainly doesn't mean that the supernatural explanation must be correct simply because another explanation hasn't been offered. Naturalists don't claim to have absolute knowledge or even that it is possible, and neither do most theists. You cut yourself off from many of the richest areas of philosophy if you fill in any unknowns with a God that you can't even define. Conclusion: Almost everything my opponent wrote is an incoherent rant with few logical arguments. I can barely read it and I have no interest in picking through every part of it to try to find arguments to refute. He has no idea what God is and only asserts that God exists to serve as a "get out of jail free card" for everything he doesn't know. Absolutely nothing has been offered to make us seriously think that God exists. The fact that it is possible to explain some things with God does not mean he exists or that the explanations are correct. Con has also completed failed to follow the format of the debate by skipping a round and failing to organize his thoughts in any way (readable sentences would not have been much to ask for).