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

Thanks, Pro, for your further arguments. Mind Over Matter My opponent argued that I used the ad hominem fallacy. This fallacy is when a statement is mead about a person's character trait, and then claiming that causes their argument to be invalid. I merely stated that because my opponent is a materialist, he has motivations for not accepting my arguments. This would be akin to saying that because a person has a commitment to Judaism, then they would hold reserves from accepting Christian conclusions. I would ask my opponent to be more careful when making assertions that I'm committing fallacies, something I repeatedly asked last round. My opponent still argues that information is simply a description of matter. This would be akin to saying that language is merely a description of sounds that we make. Whether you want to call it “information”, “description”, “communication”, or whatever, there is an underlying principle that causes reality to be ordered, so that it can function. If there was no order to the universe, we would not be able to be having a conversation right now. My opponent claims he refuted my premise that: Information is the underlying principle of reality. 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. Prime Mover My opponent does not agree that the qualities of a prime mover include being beyond space, time, and limitations. If the prime mover had the quality of space, that would be arguing that space caused itself, or that time causes itself, etc. These would be contradictions. This is why it is prima facie false. The prime mover necessarily is outside of space-time. So, even if you want to argue that quantum fluctuations caused THIS universe to exist, you still need to explain where that came from. Quantum fluctuations already include space, matter, and limitations. In order to rebut my prime mover argument, my opponent asked us to imagine a magical ball with magical properties. This is supposed to be a discussion based on reason, based on the actual world. You cannot refute a logical a priori argument by imagining something that could not exist in the actual world. This is nonsense. This would be akin to me making the argument that a square circle cannot exist, with my opponent then rebutting with “but imagine a magical square circle, there, I refuted your argument!” My opponent then maid the claim that it is theists who add “bells and whistles” to God. The conclusions I made of God, or the prime mover, were all based on logical a priori conclusions- nothing was superfluous. Historicity of Jesus My opponent made a false claim about the link I presented. It is splattered with sources for all of the claims it makes. My opponent argued that none of New Testament was written until hundreds of years until after he died. He gave no evidence to support this claim. We have early church fathers in the first and second centuries that were already quoting texts from the New Testament, proving that the New Testament was at least written in the first century (1). Another argument for the historicity of Jesus is the Nazarene Edict (2). This edict prohibits people from stealing bodies from grave, especially for religious purposes. This law was enacted in the first century in Nazareth. Now, it is interesting that such a law would be established, unless there was significant event where a holy body had disappeared, and it caused enough controversy to establish the need to harsh precautions. I argue that the reason for this edict was Jesus' body disappearing. 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 opponent then argued that it is not that unbelievable for people to die for their religion. Okay. But this is not what I argued, and I'm growing weary having to continually restate my arguments because they continually become straw-manned. 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. If a Muslim believes that sacrificing himself will earn him a spot in heaven, that shows that he is sincere in his beliefs. Now, with the case of the apostles, they were the witnesses of Jesus. They were the first followers of the faith. If they were the ones that created the religion, as you are claiming, that would mean they knew that Jesus was a fraud. That also means that they continued to be persecuted, tortured, and killed for that lie. Why would anyone do that? I asked for you to show me a case where people will die defending a lie. You have continually failed to do so for two rounds. My arguments remain standing. Historicity of Genesis My opponent argued that creationists' claims are false because they are motivated by money. This is an actual ad hominem fallacy, as opposed to his false claim of me earlier. Also, I would like to ask my opponent: “Where are these creationists that are making such a financial gain?” My opponent argued that science is what can be repeatedly tested and repeatedly proven to be true. There even may be times, like with quantum mechanics, where people were very opposed to it early on, but that didn't make it false. Ironically, he then argues that genetic entropy, while being in its early phases, must be false because it is not making much of an impact. Luckily, real science is determined by the data that can be repeated, not by the amount of adherents. My opponent argued that the papers do not support the claims that I have made. Did he even read the papers? On the paper of using natural selection to preserve biological information, it was shown that there will be deleterious mutations that will escape the “notice” of natural selection. These mutations will accumulate over time, resulting in continues erosion of genetic information. This is genetic decay. You would need to start with a perfectly ordered genome to decay over time to match the results of what we have today. Evolution is impossible, because the information is only decaying over time, not improving. Imagine you had a novel. Every so often, copies would be made, and every new copy, there would be mistakes and errors. After a while, the book would eventually be unreadable. (Creation with moderate decay) Imagine you had a book that had only one sentence. After just a couple copies the sentence would be unreadable. (Evolution could never get started) This is what the results are showing. Miracles My opponent falsely accused me of making the argument ad populum and argument from authority fallacies. I really wish he would be more careful about making false accusations, because it continually wastes my character space. Please. Stop. Doing. This. The argument ad populum means that I'm arguing since the majority believe it to be true, then it must necessarily be true. I did not use this fallacy. I argued that since so many people around the world (and this is not even remotely close to the most people), it would be irrational to dismiss their claims, not that their claims are automatically true. The argument from authority is when a person argues that since this authority figure believes this, then it must necessarily be true. I did not argue this. I argued that if educated physicians believe in miracles, we should not dismiss testimonies to be false. My opponent raises the fair critique that the importance of understanding the miracle claims is understanding what the true causation is. He offered that the placebo effect may be a good explanation. I fail to understand how the placebo effect can raise someone from the dead. This rebuttal is woefully insignificant. 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. Evidential Argument of Evil 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. The evidential problem of evil states that there are excessive amounts of evil in the world, and that an all loving God would prevent a certain amount of those evils. The first issue with this argument is that it is impossible to prove that there are excessive amounts of evil. Secondly, with my miracles argument, I have shown that God does interact and provide miracles to those that pray to Him. Thirdly, the term evil needs to be defined. A utilitarian would define good as pleasure and bad as pain. Thus, they would argue that there is evil in the world whenever they see pain. A theist would argue that good is what is just and evil is sin. So, if people may go through painful experiences (emotions and physical harm is not evil) which results in then becoming a better person (soul building), then that would mean there is mostly good in the world. My opponent would need to justify his stance that evil is that which is painful. Moral Argument Morality is objective in this universe. Things like murder and rape are always wrong in any context, not depending on culture. 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. If my opponent wants to refute this, he must argue that morality is subjective, or supply an alternative explanation for objective morals. (1) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org...