Return Debate on a Clichéd Topic - Arguing about God.

The existence of God is the most overused topic on this site and I'm fairly convinced most or all of the arguments for both sides fail. Nonetheless, I really can't think of any other topic that would interest many people at the moment, so I might as well announce my return to DDO with it. Hello, people. :) Terms of the debate The counter the biased voting that usually occurs on this site in relation to this topic, it will deviate from typical debates and instead will try to focus solely on the quality of arguments presented and the persuasiveness of the debaters by requiring each side to give one argument each in support of the existence of God and the non-existence of God. If anyone wishes to ask for any clarifications before the debate they should do so in the comments and not the debate rounds themselves. In the preliminary round (i.e. round 1) both sides will list their two arguments and outline them. There will be three rounds for debating. In the first of the three rounds the debaters will argue in support of the two arguments they have presented but will not attempt to refute their opponents arguments. In the second, both sides will address each other's positive case and in the third and final round, both sides will defend their arguments from their opponent's criticisms. The full resolution is: "The arguments presented by Pro are more persuasive and better argued than the arguments presented by Con" Note the relative nature of the resolution; if Con presents bad arguments but Pro argues even worse Con wins by the resolution; also, if both argue well but one gets the better of the other (s)he will win. Since only individual arguments are allowed, they do not have to, in themselves, prove the (non)existence of God, but only contribute in a substantive way to the attempt. Both sides shall an equal burden of proof. No semantics are allowed. God will be defined in the classical theistic sense [1]. The argument I shall use in support of the existence of God is: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument [5] The Leibnizian cosmological argument is probably the second most popular variant of the cosmological argument today. It is based on a weak form of the Principle of Sufficient Reason [6] (premise 1) which concerns explanations of existence. This is its syllogistic form: P1: Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. P2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. P3: The universe exists. : . Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3). : . Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4). The argument I shall use in support of the non-existence of God is: The Darwinian Problem of Evil The Darwinian problem of evil argues that the sheer enormity of suffering in the animal kingdom is highly implausible on theism or that naturalism has more predictive power with respect to animal suffering than theism, so all things held equal theism should be rejected. There are a number of variants on the argument, from the popular level version by John Loftus in the Christian Delusion [7] to more scholarly versions like the one argued by Paul Draper [8]. Sources [1] i.e. Omniscient [2] Omnibenevolent [3] and Omnipotent [4]. [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.knowledgerush.com... [4 ]http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] http://www.theopedia.com... [6] [6] http://plato.stanford.edu... [7] http://www.amazon.com... [8] http://www.infidels.org...