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

Round two Rebuttal OutlineI. IntroII. Cosmological argumentIII. Moral argumentIV. Minor pointsV. ConclusionVI. Sources.I. IntroI will now respond to my opponent's round one argument directly. I will try to address every point. Though I will run out of characters.The Cosmological argument is a word puzzle and gish gallop. The reason it took me so long to respond, is I was attempting to untangle the mess. I learned some webs are too tangled to untangle yourself. With the help of rationalwiki I can expose my opponent's argument for the gish gallop it is."The Gish GallopWhile it may not be immediately obvious, Craig's 5 arguments for God's/god's existence amount to an example of the Gish Gallop, containing a hailstorm of misrepresentations and dubious statements, wrapped up in a few obvious facts. Since rebutting statements takes up more of his opponent's time than it took him to deliver them, he later is able to list out those statements of his which were not replied to, owing to the strictly controlled format and time limit in most debating environments. " [0]My opponent is attempting to run me out of time and characters with gish gallop. " Thus, Gish Galloping is frequently employed (with particularly devastating results) in timed debates. The same is true for any time- or character-limited debate medium, including Twitter and newspaper editorials. " [1]Since this debate is both timed and has a character limit, I appeal to the audience sense of justice. This gish gallop is an unfair tactic, nevertheless I will attempt to disprove every single point. I may lose the debate, but as least we will know the flaws of my opponent's argument. II. Cosmological argumentI will rephrase the argument my opponent made. The Kalām cosmological argument. The differences between my opponent's version and this version are inconsequential. " (P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. (P2) The universe began to exist. (C) Therefore, the universe must have a cause." [0]Flaw zero, this argument is contradictory. "That the existence of an uncaused cause (i.e., God) contradicts the initial premise of his argument doesn't seem to dampen his spirits. " [0]Flaw one, in physics things do not begin to exist, things form from other things already in existence."The first premise of Craig's argument is flawed.In physics, things do not begin to exist. The conservation of mass means that things form from other things already in existence. So it is meaningless to state that they have a cause because they begin to exist.In quantum mechanics, things happen which are not caused, such as radioactive decay, or when an atom in an excited energy level loses a photon. No cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus."I learned something new and cool. I never would have guessed the above if my opponent hadn't made this debate. Thank you. Nevertheless, this shows a flaw of premise one of the cosmological argument. Flaw two, there are many alternatives to the universe existing."Instead, various possibilities exist. Before the expansion started, the universe existed in a stable state eternally. The multiverse could have existed before our universe started. There could have been a Big Crunch prior to the Big Bang. In fact, published cosmological models, such as the Steinhardt–Turok model and Baum–Frampton model describe such Universes. Something else entirely could have existed."Again, I never would have guessed if I hadn't read this article. Impact, this shows a flaw in premise two of the cosmological argument. Flaw three, too complicated and Occam's razor."Furthermore, Occam's razor comes into play (as it always does when people try to multiplicate unnecessary hypotheses), reminding us that even if we entertain the conclusion that the cosmos was created by a God, it still doesn't explain where that God came from - who designed the designer? And if we simply conclude that the God created itself (or always existed), then why not just save a step and simply conclude that the cosmos created itself (or always existed)? " [1]A much simpler argument can be made that the cosmos created itself or always existed. Under occam's razor this is the superior solution.Next is the logical fallacies, begging the question, special pleading, argument from ignorance, and compositional errors. [1]This damages the cosmological argument heavily and show its flaws. I particularly dislike the word trap of everything that begins to exist, this is special pleading, making a special exception just for God, and feels misleading.Now I've used about half my characters, therefore I will be forced to ignore some points my opponent made. III. Moral argument" Let us move on to the Moral Argument:P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.Con. Therefore, God exists." PrimeprimeministerJoshua812I will rephrase this, again the changes are insignificant. Just makes it easier for me process. If objective moral values exist, then God exists. Objective moral values exist. Therefore, God exists. This is logically valid, yet lacks soundness. First, moral relativism could damage this argument. Some people think eating meat is moral others disagree. Also geographical location effects morals, for instance a society could think of salt as a highly prized possession in a desert biome and worthless in a rain forest biome. Stealing salt would be a felony in the former and not a crime in the latter. There are also many examples of different values within different cultures. Second, there is ways for objective morals to exist without God. For example, all societies condemn murder. Animals also have a sense of morality. Wolves have a sense of fairness. "It was thought dogs learned their sense of justice from their human ‘best friends’, but tests on wolves show they have a stronger reaction to unequal treatment than their domesticated cousins" [2] This is a strong case for objective morality coming from evolution as opposed to God. After-all, wolves cannot read stone tablets. IV. Minor pointsI've address the major points of my opponent's argument. Without the foundation of the cosmological argument and moral argument, my opponent's argument fails. I will now attempt to address as many minor points as I can, though I doubt I have the character space to do so. "Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. " primeministerJoshua812 First, I disagree, something very tiny might be able to pop into existence, like a particle or atom. There is so much we do not now about the universe. I agree that a complex organism or construct like a rabbit or laptop computer cannot pop into existance. "At least with magic, you've got a hat and a magician and if something can come into existence being from nothing, then why don't see this happening all the time?" 812Atoms are microscopic, we cannot see them with the naked eye, this could happen all the time, and we would not even know. "Everyday experience and Scientific evidence confirm our first premise." 812I beg to differ, the beginning of the universe is before time, there is no precedence for that. "If something begins to exist it must have a cause, for example, a Chicken laying an egg." 812Negative, the conservation of mass disproves this. Things form from other things already in existence."If the Universe had been here forever it would have run out of usable energy by now." 812That assumes the universe is losing usable energy at the same rate it is now. The universe may have had a state of stasis before it started expanding. "predicted that the universe is expanding. " 812The universe may not have always been expanding. "alternative models popped into existence but eventually, all failed the test of time." 812You provide no evidence of these alternative models failing, this is a bare assertion and ipse dixit fallacy. "More recently three Cosmologists- Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin proved that ANY UNIVERSE which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history CANNOT BE ETERNAL IN THE PAST, but must have an absolute beginning. " 812This is an example of name-dropping." He completely ignores the fact that he is the one who is debating, not some long-dead writer. Some vague reference to a rebuttal is not an actual rebuttal, though it seems valid in the eyes of the spectators." [0]This is a vague reference to cosmologists supposedly disproving the universe being eternal in the past. "This even applies to a multiverse (if there is such a thing). " 812We know almost nothing about the multiverse, agnosticism is logically towards the multi-verse. There is not enough evidence to make any definite conclusions right now."Alexander Vilenkin summed it up best when he said: "This means that Scientists can no longer hide behind a past eternal universe. " 812Yes scientists can there just is not enough information.I am out of characters, I cannot respond to all my opponent's points.V. ConclusionIn conclusion my opponent parrots William Lane Craig and employs a gish gallop, effectively taking little effort, time, and characters to make, and a large amount to untangle. Within the gish gallop is a thick jungle of logical fallacies, unsound arguments, and a severe lack of evidence. Think of Achilles and the tortoise. [3] You know it is false, but pinpointing the flaws is difficult. VI. Sources. 0. https://rationalwiki.org...1. https://rationalwiki.org...2. https://www.independent.co.uk... 3. https://www.britannica.com...