There are no good reasons to think theism is true

“In a debate context, to refuse to address and engage with an argument is to tacitly admit it.” (1) - Bill CraigBurden of proofThe resolutionFirstly, my opponent intimates that I have somehow changed the debate resolution. In RI, the resolution states,“I will present an argument to try and establish that no such being exists. I'll leave it to Con to present reasons for theism”Both my and Con’s burden is outlined here. Given that he accepted this as a precondition of the debate, he most certainly has to establish a case. Despite what he said in R2, he has to provide the weight for theism. If he fails to do that, the motion is affirmed.The corrosive PoEHere I argued that if I can establish that no all good AND all powerful being exists, as the PoE concludes, then given the definition of theism, I will have negated the resolution. No response.Extend argumentThe dishonest gambit and debate contextCon again begs the question here, assuming that the difference between my claim and Craig's is that I alone have the burden of proof, which is exactly what I'm contending. Also, in no way does this remotely change my general claim to an absolute claim. Even if the onus is on me to argue for the resolution, then it certainly doesn't entail that I have to disprove every theistic argument, even though the PoE effectively does so.WSA Evidential PoeAfter Con’s blunder in mistaking my evidential PoE for the logical version, he finally responds . . . to the wrong version! He chides,“Did my opponent grab the correct premises from Rowe?”Given my argument is titled the WALTER SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG evidential PoE, Con's above statement, reeking of ill-founded arrogance, sees him yet again show himself to be unable to read even the title of my argument, let alone refute its content.This straw-man tactic completely backfires, as Con has gone 2 rounds without ever responding to the version I laid out and defended in the first round and this failure affirms both my PoE and the resolution. While I did quote Rowe, it was only to use one his examples supplementarily (given its notoriety) AFTER using both WSA’s argument and his example of gratuitous evil. Con’s target and my argument are quite different (mine is focused entirely on gratuitous evils, Rowe focuses on whether some evils are too great to ever be permissible) which makes his response entirely worthless. Extend argument. Resolution affirmed.Let’s look at the responses anyway:1. Circular reasoning?Even Con’s source doesn’t claim the PoE to be predicated on theistic arguments failing. For example, an equally good theistic/atheistic argument on either side would give us a 50/50 probability, which may allow Con to affirm the resolution. Secondly, I don’t even need the possibility to be 50/50. Given my unaddressed corrosive PoE point, a well defended PoE would erode the probability of theistic arguments, especially when none 3 of these necessitate an all good AND all powerful being. Also, especially given that I started the debate, I think it’s ludicrous to scorn me in assuming neutrality when making my argument initially. 2. Memory diminishment and primal awareness First I have to say that merely naming a response and linking to a biased website/book review is a pretty outrageous response to my rather detailed argument. Second, even if both of these are abundantly true, they’re woefully insufficient, simply because they don’t apply in all cases, nor do they even claim to (e.g. they obviously don’t apply to a newly-born baby who dies after days of suffering, among many other examples). Also, they don’t even try to deny the existence of gratuity, which is the whole point of my argument. They only attempt to minimise evil, which isn’t enough. Lastly, these “solutions” are arguably evils themselves. Memory suppression leads to things like multiple personality disorder (2), while one could interpret primal awareness as increased suffering for higher primates (rather than less suffering for other animals).Con’s theism Incomplete theismHere I complained that even taken together, Con’s arguments would simply give no reason to favour (for example) an evil God over a theistic conception. All Con does is give a neutral, generic quote about fine-tuning (WTF?), which has nothing to do with anything I’ve said here.Extend argument. Resolution affirmed.Unjustified argumentationCompletely ignored by Con, yet alone enough to derail his case. Extend argument. Resolution affirmed.Contingency3 Fallacious tacticsCon again treats P1 as if it were a given, simply assuming its truth. As we can see however, this just isn’t acceptable:“The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason or cause.” (3)I’m open to be persuasion here, but I find it amazing that Con thinks he can just assume something as crucial in a debate. No response to my claims he argued from ignorance and dubious authority here. Extend argumentsTheistic explanationHere I gave problems with God as an explanation, such as God explains neither how nor why the universe exists, and is ultimately unfathomable. He says that I must show a “more plausible causal agent”, but this is simply arguing from ignorance again. All I have to show here is significant problems with P2, and given that Con hasn't even tried to deal with the criticisms, I have done so.Extend argumentsFTImplicit valueCon here admits that he assumes teleology . . . to argue for design! That’s my whole point. Either we argue in a circle, or we have to justify the value of life from the universe's perspective, which Con clearly hasn't even tried to do.ProbabilitiesCon quotes Craig here to respond to my objection by Everitt. The problem is Craig is merely correcting “misleading” language from Hawking’s recent book. It has absolutely nothing to do with Everitt’s objection of calculating probabilities. Yet again, Con throws up a link with literally no relevance.Also, the argument from the McGrews about the probability calculations was completely ignored. Extend arguments.AlternativesHe claims to have dealt with this under physical necessity, but his sole case for this was a quote from Hawking, who even his own source recognises uses my approach to explain FT:“Hawking and Mlodinow appeal to the Many Worlds Hypothesis to augment one’s probabilistic resources (4)”His argument against chance was a link to paper about God’s use of chance which has nothing to do with FT, as well as yet again begging the question.Con has yet to argue directly against the multiverse, let alone rule it out or even respond to its virtues as an explanation over God. Extend argumentExperienceContrary experienceCon just begs the question here by assuming these experiences have been “verified” without justifying this. Further, even Con admits (with his creatures response) that these experiences are generally unreliable, so why take theistic experience seriously?Con ignored the evil God point and non-belief. Extend argumentsDemographicsHere I pointed out that experiences differ most by geography, which would seem surprising on theism, if these experiences were the result of malevolent forces. Now, Con just plays the mystery card, asserting some plan, and yet again assuming, rather than making his case. By changing the words/structure of my argument, Con then manufactures a fallacy. Who'd have guessed that one could identify a fallacy by completely changing an argument? This particular straw-man stands as a symbol of endemic and severe misconduct.ConclusionWe have seen that Con has evaded my PoE, assumed much of his own case and distorted many of my rebuttals. Given this, one must conclude the resolution has been multiply and resoundingly affirmed on every level. Vote Pro!Sources1. Craig vs Law 1:33:002. http://www.lucidpages.com...3. http://plato.stanford.edu...4. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...