It is more probable than it is improbable that a monotheistic and at least Deistic God exist.

Round 4 reflectionOutlineI. IntroII. BodyIII. ConclusionIV. Sources I. IntroFirst, this round will be quite different. I will not respond to most of my opponent's arguments. This debate in my opinion has ballooned out of control. From the previous rounds it should be crystal clear that I am not qualified to sufficiently, throughly, quickly, and with great clarity win. I scramble to make the 72 hour dead line and chaff against the 10,000 character limit. I don't think my argument contains all eight of the universal intellectual standards. [0] I also have failed to fully prove you wrong. Just as a debate a year ago or so with a flat Earther, I have not completely proven you incorrect. "Perhaps you then start to appeal to science. But unless you’re unusual, you probably don’t know all of the details of the scientific proofs. And even if you know the details, unless you’ve indulged existing flat-earth literature, you are unlikely — right here, right now — to be able to cogently, concisely, and comprehensively respond to the lengthy rebuttals flat-earthers will give to each and every scientific proof."[1]Just as with the Flat Earther, I thought I could just crush my oppoenent's argument with science. I wanted a decisive crushing victory. Instead, of responding to every argument my opponent made and proving it wrong I will simply state extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My opponent relies upon attacking other ideas for the existence of the universe, and then claiming God as a default.Look, I've disproved the other theories therefore, God is the only alternative. The problem is there are any number of possible explanations for the universe, humans are constantly discovering new species and other scientific discoveries. Simply put, even if my opponent can disprove every single alternative theory to the universe's existence other than God, this does not prove God. Why, because humans have a finite imagination. Humans did not imagine there was any galaxies at all until about 500 bce let alone that there are billions. [2]There could be any number of unknowable and unimaginable causes for the universe other than God. Without solid evidence of God, I can just reply your evidence is weak to non-existent. Assume I did so for all claims that I have not responded to. II. BodyA. Gish gallop & rationalwikiYour argument is gish gallop. Rationalwiki is a credible source that confirms what your argument is. "LEFT-CENTER BIASThese media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.Factual Reporting: HIGHNotes: The purpose of RationalWiki is: Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, documenting the full range of crank ideas, explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism, analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media. RationalWiki does have a left of center bias in what they choose to list. (8/19/2016)" [3]You then try to defend that your argument is not gish gallop with even more gish gallop. I've had enough, my patience has ended. B. Why bother to contend for atheism?I want to address another point. Why am I even bothering to argue? Why did I accept? Should not we respect each other's differences? Some would state a cultural relativity quote here. I say no, no way! Yet, aren't our argument similar, after all we both rely heavily upon science? In one video my opponent posted, the suggestion that we use science to help us interpret the Bible comes up. I apologize that I cannot find the video right now. This is nuanced and certainly far from Bible literalism. So, why not just leave well enough alone? After all, theists are using science more and more.If you don't believe me since i can't find the video, I could rephrase this, why not leave moderate theists alone? Why not just go after the extremists, like the West Baptist boro church?I think this is a solid question. Here is my personal pet theory. No, I'm not going to back this up with lots of outside links, so feel free to take a skeptical approach to my theory. My theory is based upon Richard Dawkins book the God Delusion [4 ] pages 204-205 about the roots of religion, and human gullibility. Also, this BBC article. [5]"Our brains don’t let piddling little facts get in the way of a good story, allowing lies to infect the mind with surprising ease." In my world view religion is an infection of the mind. I see myself as a scientist working with other scientists in an attempt to find a cure. I know from computer malware that often each piece of malware causes a security breach. Meaning each consecutive infection is easier than the previous. Think of an open wound and how it is important to keep it clean and covered lest pathogens seep in.Humans have a firewall called critical thinking. Religion is a computer virus, an infection of the mind that causes a security breach. Not only that religion is often within itself detrimental, without this breach. This breach then allows other computer malware into our hard drives. Here is an outside source to back up my claim. "a propensity to attribute the source of unexplained or extraordinary events to unseen, intentional forces (Shermer 1997). In psychological studies, this tendency is often found in supernatural, paranormal, or religious beliefs (Boyer 2001; Norenzayan and Hansen 2006; Tobacyk and Milford 1983)."There is a correlation between religious belief and believing in conspiracy theories. Now, correlation is not always causation, yet in this case I think religious belief causes belief in conspiracy theories. [6]Let's take the case of deism and other moderate theocracy. Let's say then in religion x there is no sacrifice of goat, nor sexism, homophobia, human sacrifices, witch hanging, etc. Religion x would still be a problem because it inherently causes a security breach within the human mind. This is the downside of deism. This is why illogical arguments should be exposed. "Some of your dearest opinions may have no more substance than the great banana hoax of the year 2000." [5]Just think of how gullible humans are. Humans seem to evaluate information on this criteria. " Does a fact come from a credible source? Do others believe it? Is there plenty of evidence to support it? Is it compatible with what I believe? Does it tell a good story?" [5]Look at number two, do others believe it? This is why moderate theism is detrimental to society. Why, because the more people who believe in a belief the more likely someone is to believe it. In another words, the more Muslims in the world, the more likely someone is to convert to Islam, the same goes with Christianity. This is an ad populum fallacy, nevertheless this is how humans make decisions. This could be rephrased another way, the more people that believe in God, the more likely someone is to believe God exists. This is why deism is beneficial to theists. This is why many Christian theists contend for deism in lieu of Christianity. One more believer in God, even if it is the wrong God. Furthermore, number 4, is it compatible with what I know? Once a person accepts deism, then accepting Jesus of Nazareth or Allah is that much easier. Since deism is closer to Christianity or Islam than atheism, it is more compatible with what the person knows. Finally, my pet theory of the security breach means there is three reasons why deists are more likely to accept Jesus or Allah. That's, do other's believe it, one more person believing in God, deism is more compatible with the Abraham religions, and finally the security breach theory. Conspiracy schemes can cause damage, think of anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, aids deniers, and so forth. Conspiracy plots divide people. "From 9-11 to Sandy Hook, the paranoid and divisive view of the world that conspiracy theories promote has been gaining in popularity since the first false “facts” about President Kennedy’s death became widely accepted. "[7]Hundreds of thousands of people have died from uncritical thinking. "368,379 people killed, 306,096 injured and over $2,815,931,000 in economic damages " [8]Belief in religion even deism is illogical and dangerous. III. ConclusionMy opponent has ran me out of patience with gish gallop. To every claim my opponent made I didn't respond to yet, I respond extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To prove the existence of God requires lots of evidence. Simply going on the offensive and claiming whatever remains must be true is insufficient since any number of unknowable and unimaginable causes of the universe could be true. Just as humans didn't know there was billions of galaxies until recently.Instead, I focus on the harm of sloppy thinking and the correlation between religious belief and conspiratorial thinking. 368,379 dead from lack of critical thinking. [8] This is why I contend for atheism. Religion, together we can find the cure.IV. Sources0. http://www.criticalthinking.org...1. https://www.vox.com...2. https://www.space.com...3. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...4. https://www.goodreads.com...5. http://www.bbc.com...6. https://atheistpapers.com...7. https://www.skeptic.com...8. http://whatstheharm.net...