Atheism is more probable than Theism.

As my opponent has to drop all of his arguments, I too will focus only on my own arguments. In this, I will point out that my opponent has an incomplete reference 4. So I will defend my arguments here. Firstly, I will put to rest the idea of "genetic basis-hence evolved. Hence no God." 1. We have no evidence that it evolved. A common ancestor is only just as plausible as a common designer, with none of the intelligence. 2. It goes against evolutionary philosophy. This is because survival of the fittest prohibits that which is weak from reproducing more than that of the strong. There is thus no need for, and no selective pressure. 3. Even if morality evolved, the possibility that a God placed it there is actually very great. 4. Finally, all the qualities you have listed are NOT qualities of morality. It is aspects of emotion. Euthyphro's Dilemma: This indeed is a false dichotomy. And because you did not phrase it in such a way as to protect against the "delaying," I still can use it. Since you have already yourself answered the first portion, I will move on to the second portion. The question of God and good. [1] (Since you quoted from Martin, I will quote from Koukl) "Socrates' challenge to Euthyphro has not been met. What is "good"? It doesn't help to say that God is good unless we know what the term refers to. If the word "good" means "in accord with the nature and character of God," we have a problem. When the Bible says "God is good," it simply means "God has the nature and character that God has." If God and goodness are the very same thing, then the statement "God is good" means nothing more than "God is God," a useless tautology. The answer to this problem hinges on the philosophical notion of identity, expressed symbolically as A = A. When one thing is identical to another..., there are not two things, but one... According to Christian teaching, God is not good in the same way that a bachelor is an unmarried male. When we say God is good, we are giving additional information, namely that God has a certain quality. God is not the very same thing as goodness (identical to it). It's an essential characteristic of God, so there is no tautology." So the question arises (and I"m taking ideas from 1"s next section), how do we know what is good? Well, there is a simple answer to this, moral intuition. As I mentioned earlier, this is a good argument for the existence of a God, and it cannot be explained naturalistically. Without the Christian God, moral terms are incoherent and our intuition is a nothing. So I have addressed the issue of whether God exist or not. The syllogism regarding conditions and god have nothing to do with my arguments. I will thus not refute it. (My arguments are not based on emotion) I will address each of the points made by Peterson in detail. Points 1, 2, and 5 are only useful against a religion with numerous gods. They fail thoroughly against the Christian God, and I don"t think I need to explain why. Point 3: As I said above, objective morality in some form exist. This is not an assumption. Logical reasoning would make clear that objective morality must have originated from a higher power, even highest. This does not prove the existence of a god. However, it is a strong indicator. Point 4: This assumes that the divine is unable to interact with humans. This point is mute in the case of the Judeo-Christian God. Now that I have answered fully all of Pro"s objections. I would like to agree to the amendment proposed. Say around 3k characters? So in conclusion, my arguments are not logically fallacious, morality is not naturalistically explicable, and some of your counters don"t even fit the God I"m advocating. 1. http://www.str.org...