Atheism is more probable then Theism

“You have avoided the Higgs Boson. This alone rebuts the KCA. You now have no clear argument for God therefore you lose. ” I have no idea what the Higgs Boson is. I have never heard of it. Why Pro did not defendit from the beginning is a mystery to me. And even if the “Higgs Boson” refutes the KCA, a debater does not get any credit for simply mentioning an argument that refutes his opponent. He must actually argue it, so that his opponent has a chance to respond to it. Would it be fair if I said “There are tons of books which refute atheism. Done. I win. ”? Of course not. I have to actually present the arguments in the books which I believe refute atheism, not merely mention them. So Pro’s point means nothing. Even if the Higgs Boson refuted the KCA, what does that matter to this debate? I did not defend the KCA. I defended the MCA. Pro is off point. And Pro once again violated the rules laid out in round one and brought up a fresh argument when he is only supposed to form rebuttals. "The problem of evil is sound. You gave me confusing riddles with no value. " I refuted the problem of evil with my arguments. Pro offered half-hearted responses to me that did not even begin to address what I said. My arguments still stand. Pro says I gave him confusing riddles with no value. I’m sorry if he felt confused. Debates like this can become pretty intricate. If Pro gets confused by these kinds of arguments, then maybe he should choose different debate topics, or narrow his challenge from an “open challenge” to one that must be met by someone matching his age, for example, in which case less intricate arguments might be putforth. But I certainly did not present any riddles. If Pro believes I presented riddles, then he should have given examples. “I could sto [sic] here but my opponent thinks I cheated. I did not. Conduct to me and arguments to me abuse he had none. ” In response to charges of plagiarism, Pro responded with “lol”. Then I explained how Pro violated the rules for debate rounds laid out in round one. Now Pro simply says, without defense, that he did not cheat. I explained how he did. Conduct to me. “I am busy with life and I think my opponent giving sloppy rounds lead to confusion os [sic] both sides. I will allow a better rematch in the future if you want. " We’re all busy with life. That’s not an excuse to neglect to argue one’s beliefs. If Pro feels that he was too busy to debate, then he should not be instigating or accepting debates. I did not give any sloppy rounds in this debate. My postings were very well-organized, and were divided into sections of introduction, arguments, conduct, grammar, and a conclusion. I numbered the arguments so as to disambiguate between separate points and to give an analytical breakdown of what arguments and sub-arguments were being dealt with at a particular point. I do this not only because it makes it easier on me, but it also makes it easier on my opponent as well as those who read and/or vote on the debate. I always ensure that my debate postings are clear, consistent, and highly readable. If anyone gave any sloppy rounds, it was Pro. His postings for round one and two were pretty organized, but round three was not so organized but instead consisted of random comments to my points. And round four was just a paragraph of multiple points that did not address my previous post. Pro says that my “sloppy rounds” lead to confusion on both sides. Well, Pro should notspeak for me; I’m not confused, but I’m sorry if he is. MilitaryAtheist, you said you would allow for a better rematch in the future if you want. I would love to debate you again sometime. If the debate resolution is the same as this, and if your opening statements are the same as the ones in this debate, then I will obviously give the same rebuttals. If you want the debate to be “better”, that will be entirely dependent on you. Peace. Pro’s closing words sound like a concession.