Atheism is more probable then Theism

In this round, I will explain how Pro explicitly conceded to some of my points, implicitly conceded to the rest of them by not actually addressing what I was saying, and violated the rules laid out in round one. As will be made clear in post for this round, Pro’s points are so short and undeveloped as to have no significance. ARGUMENTS 1) The Problem of Evil 1a) So? God can't find time to, oh , cure AIDS? Does God not have traits of a genie? I never said that God can’t find time to do something. That’s a straw man. I said that in the grand scheme of things, it is irrational for God to intervene to do things like cure aids. What I meant by the genie comment was that asking God to fix everything that’s wrong with the world does not seem mature. My point still stands. 1b) And what is that reason? God is all-powerful. There is nothing he could logically do. So why evil? I already explained the reason, which is that it would not make sense for God to intervene to stop something that will be stopped eventually. My point still stands. 2) The Kalam Cosmological Argument 2a) So? And you are wrong. I don't judge based on experience in the creation of the Universe “So? ” is not a rebuttal. Pro implicitly concedes my point about the universe needing a causeoutside of itself. My point still stands. And Pro claims that he does not judge based on experience in the creation of the universe. Okay, I never said that he did. And how does that have any relevance to my point? My point still stands. 2b) “What? You just repeated the KCA. And there is many theories for the Universe. Ever heard of Virtual particles? ” I did not repeat the KCA. The KCA affirms a first initiating cause due to the impossibility of an infinite regress. I’m using modal logic to move from the contingency of the universe to a non-contingent cause outside of it. They are related points, but they are not the same. My point still stands. And no, I’ve never heard of virtual particles. I have no idea why Pro did not bring them up in round two, and I have no idea why he did not argue for them in this round, but that does not matter anyway. I never denied scientific explanations for the beginning of the universe. I denied scientific explanations for theexistence of the universe, because it has nothing to do with science, it’s a purely logical issue. 2c) “Because the Universe didn't have a cause the KCA doesn't apply to it. It is foolish to think God was around forever and not supply proof. Stop making assertions and then we talk. ” If Pro wants to believe that the universe did not have a cause (and so the KCA does not apply to it) he can, but he has to argue it, not simply assert it. Hypocritically, Pro now tells me to not make assertions (I assume he means un-argued assertions). Anyway, in response to Pro’s second objection concerning the KCA, I only had to defend the compatibility of the KCA and (an uncaused) God, because Pro’s claim was that the two conflict. I did not have to present an argument for God being uncaused. I thought this was clear. Anyway, my argument about God not having a cause is in my defense of the modal cosmological argument. My point about God and the KCA not conflicting still stands. 2d) “lol. It is not. What created the creator? God was just floating around in nothing, doing nothing before he wanted to create the Universe. Which, is more logically then a Universe thatwas always around. ” This question does not address my point about the non-arbitrary, comprehensive, and economical nature of God, but I’ll address it anyway. As I explained, I am initially open to the idea of an eternally existing universe, or a universe that was caused to come into existence by an infinite series of causes and effects. My point is about the modality of the universe, the bare logical existence. As I explained, there must be a cause that at least sustains, if not initiates, the existence of the universe. This cause would not have cause itself if it had a radically different nature from everything else in existence, everything else that it caused. Pro seems to be still stuck on the idea of material cause and effect and he is not addressing what I am actually saying in my argument. Pro also says that God floating around doing nothing is “more logically then [sic] a universe that was always around”. Huh? Why does Pro think God is more logical than an eternally existing universe? He probably meant to say “less logical”. Anyway, as I explained, a “universe that was always around” does not conflict with God. Pro did not address the crux of my cosmological argument, so it still stands. 3) Attacks (the paradox of all-power/all-knowing) New Argument The debate rules that were laid out in round one included the rule that the first round is for acceptance, the second is for opening statements, and the following rounds are for rebuttals only. Pro has violated this rule by introducing a new argument in round three, instead of simply forming rebuttals to me as he is supposed to. If Pro had wanted to allow for new arguments to come later in the debate, then he should have allowed for it. But he did not, so this argument does not count. Pro forgot the first rule about plagiarizing: Make sure that you actually read and support whosever words you are passing off as your own! But for the fun of it, I’ll address it anyway, though I would appreciate it if Pro did not bring it up again in the next round. Pro’s formulation of this attack is incoherent (violating another debate rule laid out in round one), but as I am familiar with many atheistic arguments, I think I know what he is trying to say. I’ll apply the principle of charity to him and assume that he meant something like this: If God knows what the future holds, how can be make a free decision that could alter that future. Or, if God has free will over the future, how can he really know what the future will hold? ” The solution to this is very simple. I don’t believe that omniscience extends to include knowledge of the future. After all, the future by definition does not exist, so how could God know a proposition to be true or false in the future when there is no future for it to be true or false in? So there is no contradiction. “So far Con has not given his BOP. ” Pro must mean that I have not met my BOP. First of all, the BOP is shared. We are both making positive claims. Secondly, anyone who reads this debate can clearly see that I have met my burden of proof, while Pro has failed to meet his. I refuted his arguments, and his responses to my refutations had no meat on them. CONDUCT I pointed out Pro’s plagiarism. His response to this was only the following: “lol”. Well, maybe Pro is laughing out loud, but my guess is that Microsuck (the guy who wrote round one) is not laughing out loud, or laughing at all. CONCLUSION In my conclusion I recapped that I refuted all of Pro’s arguments and defended the implications behind the KCA. Pro’s only response to this was “Okay. ” (For whatever reason, Pro posted his comments out of order and put his response to my conclusion before the grammar). So I take it that heconcedes to all of my points. NOTE: When I put my post for round two in the box, it said at the bottom that I had 313 characters remaining, yet when I tried to enter it, it would not allow me, saying “Your argument cannot be more than 8000 characters in length. ” TBut it wasn't more than 8000 characters! There must have been some technological glitch. Well, I cut the section that I entitled "Grammatical Errors" so that the post for round three would fit, though I may post it in the comment section instead to compensate.