No believer in any religion that includes an afterlife can provide me with a sound argument

I would suggest that I overestimated my opponent in this argument and we are now seeing him completely unravel after every single argument he made was utterly and completely torn apart. His arguments are absurd and I showed that, but all he wants to do is now call me a troll for this or claim that I fail to understand. It is clearly him who does not understand his own arguments, what logical fallacies are, what a prime mover is, and he seems to not even understand his own religion. My opponent was like a broken record with his first argument. I clearly demonstrated that the premises are an equivocation, a refutation he dodged from the very beginning. I also showed how his idea of how to defeat his argument is fallacious because the universe is becoming more chaotic, not less. We started with maximal order. I think my opponent was not prepared for rebuttals that go off his script and is now scrambling with his clearly bad logic. My opponent also liles to claim to have proved a thing without doing so or with having his proof clearly refuted. He has no proof that space cannot be eternal, he is making it up. Just like he made up and never backed up his claim that information can exist without matter or minds. My magic ball works perfectly well as a prime mover, and I suggest my opponent educate himself on what the idea of a prime mover is. I gave a brief description but he clearly can't understand it. Notice how I can just as easily claim my opponent lacks understanding? My opponent also needs to learn about psychology (or read the link I gave). People with false memories won't realize it is a false memory. Saying they denied being deluded is a non starter. Deluded people don't realize they are deluded. My opponent then makes some incredibly dishonest moves. He has basically just posted videos of people from religions making claims without any hard proof for most of his sources and what little "hard proof" he offers comes from people known to be terrible scientists who just made up a computer program to support their irrational beliefs. These are highly biased sources. He then complains about my sources being biased. The archaeologists who proved the exodus never happened were Hebrews, if anything they were biased to your side and they still disagree with you. He has no evidential legs to stand on with the bible. Your book is fairy tails without backing and even if it had backing i showed how it would not prove a god existed. My opponent also clearly did not apply his own style of reason to his rebuttal of my rejection of his pseudoscience. He likes to try to prove a thing by showing that the other options are silly(he failed at this, but he tried). Let's apply that to his pseudoscientists. What is more likely, that there is a conspiracy across all fields of science to hide the truth or that bad scientists lose their jobs and can only find work where people care more about being able to claim that a guy with a phd believes their nonsense than the truth? As to why I use the research impact, my opponent committed the snow plow fallacy. He tried to overwhelm me with piles of sources that were is unreasonable to expect me to need to sift through, so I use a junk filter and nothing he gave was able to survive. It is all junk research that is just done by fringe scientists. Even so, I showed how his evolution rebuttal in no way proves creation. I feel no need to specifically dissect sources that are shown to be garbage by their impact and do not help my opponent even if true. My opponent gave no serious rebuttal to the problem of evil. Claiming it is refuted is not refuting it nor is claiming he would call it something else. Additionally, his claim that free will is so good that evil must be allowed contradicts the bible, which I doubt he has read. If he had read the Exodus, he would know that god hardened pharaoh's heart, ie interfered with his free will directly by taking it away. Additionally, all orders from god are a type of removal of free will. Basically, he does not understand the problem of evil. He also clearly did not read my reply because in my reply I pointed out that the refuted argument says "all evil", not "all evil that does not lead to a greater good". Like I have said a few times, you can see where my opponent has just memorized refutations or is googling them because any argument or rebuttal I give that is not available on places like william lane craig's website is not responded to. My opponent just pretends they didn't happen or calls me a troll. I hope the audience is smart enough to see this nonsense for what it is. Also, con clearly skimmed my part about rape. I explained that whether or not a god interrupts a rape, free will is violated so any choice he makes results in a free will violation. A rather weak rebuttal by con. Maybe this cartoon can explan how his free will idea is a fallacy. https://youtu.be... Something my opponent also does not understand is that I attacked his position on multiple levels. My rebuttals only seem in conflict if you are unable to understand a reducio ad absurdum. I started by accepting his evidence and showing how it fails, then I went on to normal rebuttals and showed how all of his evidence is refuted, weak, and or both. As to the moral argument, he fails again. Calling goodness god's nature does not solve the dilemma. It just shifts it. Now you ask if his nature is good because it is his or if it is good because it promotes good things. If the former then it is arbitrary, if the latter then morality does not depend on a god. I have read this shift before on william lane craig's webpage. Con's stoic point is a non starter. I reject stoicism. It is some ideas based on bad psychology. Pointing out stoic ideas is not a proof that bad things do not happen to good people. If I have AIDS, I have had a bad thing happen to me. I would love to see con argue that raping a child is not bad, well he kind of did, but this just shows the level to which he will go morally bankrupt to support his false beliefs. As to who I trust, I trust the people who are intellectually honest and who do good without an all powerful magician forcing them to do it. Christians ignore good evidence, cling to bad evidence, and get their morals from fear. I do not trust amoral people and the stance of following a book's list of rules for ethics is not a moral position, it is blind obedience. Atheists follow good evidence and get morals from an innate sense of goodness backed by evidence. I pointed out that I don't care if my opponent rejects this as objective which clearly went off his script since his reply only makes sense if I claim to be sure of moral objectivity, which I have argued in the past is a badly defined term. Also, it is ridiculous to assert that I can't label people as immoral. I have an immoral framework and am free to use it. I don't care if you don't agree with me doing it, it makes sense and promotes wellbeing based on evidence. Your morals poison and corrupt the world. Read the bible, learn your rules. If an unwed virgin is raped she either marries the rapist or is executed. What a great system you have. So fair, so ethical. It is absurd to get morals from a god, but your god is a monster. It is beyond absurd to claim to get morality from the bible. Don't make the moral argument, it just makes your position look even weaker. I notice that con has essentially said he is in favor of rape, murder, and slavery. He believes the bible as literal truth and law from a good go,d and the bible condones all of those things. On the topic of a good god, con has made a whopping error made by most believers. He calls the god good and also says that we have no reference standard outside of god to determine good. How did he determine god is good if he can't know goodness without god. He basically defines good as god's nature which is a perversion of the idea of goodness. Since I have lots of space because con didn't give me anything new and just ignored the rebuttals that don't fit the apologetics he seems to have memorized, I will use this space to give con some real evidence or just fun quotes. Proof of the age of the earth (thus crushing con's young earthers)http://www.asa3.org... General proof of evolution(in the snowball fashion my opponent seems infatuated with) http://www.talkorigins.org... http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://humanorigins.si.edu... https://youtu.be... An expert here basically explains how creationists operate: https://youtu.be... http://necsi.edu... http://anthro.palomar.edu... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.scientificamerican.com... There is no serious scientific debate about whether evolution occurred. The debates relate to its mechanisms and its future. Biblical innacuracies http://rationalwiki.org... http://infidels.org... http://www.weseekthetruth.org... http://wiki.ironchariots.org... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.skeptically.org... http://www.patheos.com... The bible is a book of fairy tales and false history, it will not help you prove there is a god. Honestly, this might have been my most annoying debate. Con ignored most of my rebuttals and rebutted points I never made. When he could not grasp my points, he accused me of not understanding him. I would be more politic, but the fake politeness with veiled or direct insults throughout con's replies was a bit much. I feel like I am playing chess with the proverbial pidgeo