Theistic evolution over Darwinian evolution

Well that was certainly an interesting second round from my opponent.For the record, Pro posted his R2 less than a half an hour after I posted mine. It seems he did not even bother to read my response, and certainly he didn't respond to any of it. I am unsure of how he intends to respond to two full rebuttals in a single response. Hopefully Pro will try, I am a bit concerned because it seems he still has more to argue. Only time will tell it seems. Anyway, let's move on to this whole new set of arguments, for the moment ignoring all my previous rebuttals. We start out with a false dichotomy: "There are only two possible candidates we are aware of that could possibly be the cause or have the properties of an immaterial, omnipresent, eternal and conscious entity: either an abstract object (mathematics) or a human mind (consciousness)." This is a surprising false dichotomy, especially since my opponent himself quoted a paper in R1 which gives an explanation that is neither of those things. It seems Pro merely lifted the portions out of context for the BVG theorem without understanding it. As BVG states, there was never a "lack of anything" but quantum tunneling, neither mathematics nor a mind, is a possible explanation for the creation of the universe. My opponent cannot cherry pick parts of a theory which suits him and ignores the rest. It always surprises me when apologists offer minds as something that could potentially create something. There is no reason to believe that such is the case, he might has well have said toy horses are one of the options. Especially since this: "Human minds are understood to have agent causality where a cause would be able to bring about new effects at will without any physical dimensions or determining conditions by virtue of its agency. This is called "substance dualism" where there are two fundamental kinds of substance: mental and material." . . . is at best a baseless assertion and at worst demonstrably false. The brain is the clear generator of thought and feeling and decisions. Our consciousness is brain dependent, and we know this because of split brain patients that wind up having *two* awareness's [1]. If there was only a single substance for our consciousness, some non-physical entity, this wouldn't happen when we sever the corpus collosum. "BGV theorem, the expansion rate of the universe, which is called Eternal inflation, will continue to accelerate forever; this suggests that there's potentially an infinite degree of power being exerted to expand the universe." My opponent seems to forget the very first law of motion: Objects in motion stay in motion unless they are acted on by an outside force. Expansion is being accelerated, but not infinitely. That's due to dark energy, but it isn't infinite. The expansion rate is based on what is pushing outward vs. gravities inward pull. This is very complex stuff, but suffice to say it is not infinite as my opponent claims [2]. Contrary to my opponent's assertion, the Judeo-Christian god is *not* the longest running deity. Hinduism actually has historical roots that run longer than Judaism. I'm sure my opponent believes his religion has been around since the beginning, but this can't be assumed, especially when the historical record contradicts him [3]. Arguments from popularity fail anyway. Why he's even arguing this is beyond me, we agreed he wouldn't have to debate which god had a hand in evolution ahead of time in the comments section. "We are naturally disposed, from an early age, to see purpose and meaning in everything, including the natural world." Actually, that tendency is called "not wanting to get eaten by a predator because you assumed the rustling behind you was the wind". A side effect is that it also works for things people don't understand, they think it must be agency, just like the rustling behind them. This is shown by the fact that more logical thinking dissuades belief in god [4]. This tendency to seek agency is also not present in *all* people, which would contradict the God hypothesis. As for the Newburg study, Pro claims that other similar studies have had a different result when studying non-Christians. Again, I feel like my opponent is not reading his own sources, the study he cited says explicitly "The present study is the first we are aware of that has evaluated changes in cerebral activity during the practice of glossolalia." The rest of his argument is filled with nothing but perhaps, what ifs, and maybes. Really, almost the entire argument is nothing but that, read it for yourself and count the number of times Pro merely opines something as a possibility and then rests his argument upon it. There are many. For the most part, kenballer is engaging in little more than speculation, which is fine for armchair philosophical musings but entirely inappropriate for a debate format. My opponent's R2 doesn't at all address the debate topic. He should restart this debate and try to make it about whether or not the Christian god exists, that seems what he is more interested in debating anyway. I'll be happy to continue regardless, but I've yet to see anything substantial that would try to argue that evolution was guided by an intelligence. I urge my opponent to address the actual topic, his "model" can wait until we've at least broken ground on the topic. Thank you for your time. [1] http://www.nature.com... [2] http://science.nasa.gov... [3] http://www.religionfacts.com... [4] http://www.psychologytoday.com...