Does Ohrmazd exist

I shall rebut paragraph by paragraph. This is the best way oblige pro's request to "write in paragraphs, as it is easier to read and flows better for anyone who is interested in this topic!"I tailored/edited your text to fit 8000 character limit and to highlight what exactly I'm rebutting by cutting out 'fillers' in your text.P1: Inquisitive is mistaken here ─ for not only do theists hold that everything which "begins to exist" has a cause (Ohrmazd never began to exist), but Ohrmazd's existence is explained in the necessity of his own nature. We know this because Ohrmazd has all "intrinsic maxima" of "great-making properties". So, not only is Ohrmazd uncaused, but he needn't a cause through his necessity.R1: If Ohrmazd never began to exist Ohrmazd doesn't exist because to exist, according to the theory that all things that exist have a cause, Ohrmazd must have a cause and hence Ohrmazd itself requires a superior creating mechanism of some kind. If Ohrmazd's existence can be explained by the necessity of its own nature, so can the universe itself be justified as existing absent of a creator as the universe is blatantly necessary since it is the hosting site for everything we know to be real and true. There is no proof or evidence given to back up the unwarranted claim of a being with "intrinsic maxima" of "great making properties" so we can render that statement false or at least irrelevant.P2: I can imagine breathing in outer space, even if it is impossible for me to do so. So, just because I can imagine inhaling and exhaling in the cosmos, does not therefore mean that I can do it. Indeed, it is ridiculous to claim that things can appear out of nowhere, without a cause.R2: It is not impossible to breathe in space, it is only impossible to breath in oxygen in a space where there isn't any. One cannot imagine this because you cannot imagine anything that is impossible. Coming up with an idea isn't the same as visually imagining a false scenario in which there is no oxygen and suddenly one begins breathing in from zero. This would result in negative mass or energy which would merely be arbitrary as it's relative to nothing and hence become positive. The imaginary cosmos you created are ones in which breathing is clearly possible otherwise your imagination would have banned you from imagining breathing in it.On another note, you say this "Indeed it is ridiculous to claim that things can appear out of nowhere" However this is exactly what Ohrmazd has done in your theory.P3: Inquisitive seems to mark off every one of my points as irrelevant, without first understanding the structure of assertion and then support for that assertion. For instance, he writes off " we all know morals exist " as unwarranted and irrelevant.R3: It is still unwarranted an irrelevant because even if we all knew morals existed, it wouldn't mean there was a God of any kind at all.P4: If "Inquisitive" denies that the Nazi's[sic] who created the Holocaust were wrong, then he is in the vast minority, as almost every conscience would have a deep aversion to acts of genocide similar to the Holocaust. Under my opponent's view, we have no reason for law, or justice, or any other system, as he does not even recognise the moral wrongness of large-scale murder. It is reasonable to declare that the Nazi's were morally wrong, and I think most of the readers here will agree.R4: The reason for law is to prevent disorder and chaos. Although I an anarchist I can empathise and relate with law enforcers. They seek to solve issues of conflict by making laws and enforcing them. If the government was to legalise murder and genocide, it would cause protest and riots and possibly economically-detrimental strikes that it would back the government into a corner to then re-ban genocide.P5: Inquisitive then tries to attack the Christian's who feed the hungry with a statement about pedophilic rape. Not only does this misunderstand my broad claim about feeding the hungry being generally a morally good act, but he provides an example of an act ( pedophilic rape ) which he believes to contradict this claim, and thus view as morally wrong. So, "Inquisitive" not only misunderstood, yet again, the point of this claim ( to provide an example of a morally good act ) by responding with a specific counter-example in the vast minority of charity work, but he himself provides an example of a morally wrong act. R5: I provide an example of an act that the law bans. If you choose to base morality on law, as many patriots and jingoists do, then it is immoral but undoubtedly it is illegal. This was my point. Also there is nothing intrinsically good or bad about making a charity to feed the hungry because you could feed many hungry children and then raise them to become ninjas who assassinate people for your selfish gain. You also could be feeding the hungry with the money that could have gone to fund cancer research and save the thousands of people who died that month from cancer instead. So really stop this nonsense morality angle of attack, it literally makes no sense.P6: Inquisitive declares that if Aztec scriptures were the source of morality, then I would be wrong. However, we have no reason to believe that the Aztecs were morally right in their sacrificial acts, nor do we have reason to believe that Aztec scriptures are a source of morality. Rather, the source of morality that Inquisitive himself abides by is our conscience, which is the universal mental phenomenon I am referring to.Pro has assumed I abide by a code of morality outlined by my conscience and that I am not a strict follower of Aztec philosophy. These assumptions are unwarranted and irrelevant to my opponent's case. God is not my conscience and there is not even any evidence for this anyway. So quite an irrelevant point to raise.P7: Inquisitive provides examples of those who he believes to have committed morally wrong acts -- Nazi's, Al-Qeda[sic], and the Truman administration[I never mentioned this]... If they are morally wrong, then my opponent contradicts one of his very first statements, that the Nazi's were not morally wrong in their creation of the Holocaust! R7: This is nothing to do with proving Ohrmazd's existence whatsoever.P8: Inquisitive then attacks my line of "morality exists in the heart" with morality existing in the "mind and reasoning" to which I agree. The "heart" here does not refer to the organ, but rather to our conscience, which determines the moral rightness or wrongness of any act. Inquisitive also agrees that morality exists as reasoned. I would ask Inquisitive if he clarify his stance on the nature of morals. And then, Inquisitive declares that Stalin would not agree with my statement about intuition and morals, to which I would reply that Stalin is therefore wrong. I could just as easily say, I do not think most moral philosophers would agree with you. This is simply an appeal to authority and has no value in the discussion.R8: Morals are irrelevant to the debate, as Stalin would tell you, because morals do not come from God but our own intellect and emotional urge to reason what is right and wrong. See R9 for more.P9: Since Inquisitive denies that Ohrmazd is the best explanation for morals, if they exist, then I'd ask Inquisitive to provide a superior, naturalistic explanation.R9: Humans with down's syndrome and mental retardation have no morality. This is the reason why we do not expect them to know not to kill someone but rather hope that they will be incapable of planning any crime at all. All animals are amoral other than human beings. Most humans want communal success and growth. Best way to achieve this is to help one another selflessly but in a society where everyone is selfless. As I said, ask Stalin, he'd tell you all about it. Morality is the con of mankind. It makes you act against everything you were built to do; to compete for survival in a world of natural selection. That is all.