Theism is a Superior Wordview to the Belief in atheist Dogma:

"I have not described any supposed "belief in God," so that is nothing but a straw man logical fallacy on your part." The "belief in God" which you have specified is comprised of the word "Theism" in the title of this debate (1) and all of your statements about God in Round One, including that God is loving, that God has intelligence, etc. That is what you have described. Unless you wish to change the topic of this debate, you cannot dispute that you have outlined a "belief in God", even if nowhere but in the title. " 'Argument 1 - Pro claims that God is loving of all humans.' No I didn't, so that is a second straw man on your part." I concede that Pro did not claim that God is loving of all humans. I revise my point in this way: Pro claims that God possesses the quality of love. For the rest of this debate, know that Pro has agreed that God is omnipotent: " 'God is omnipotent.' You are correct about that -- thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you!" This means that God is all-powerful and can do anything which he chooses to do. "Without God, torture could not be objectively wrong." "Without God, killing could not be objectively wrong." "Without God, oppression, war, and terrorism could not be objectively wrong." "Without God, being born with a birth defect could not be an objectively bad thing." "Without God, dying soon after birth could not be an objectively bad thing." I never stated that torture, killing, etc. could be objectively wrong in a world without God. However, in a world WITH God, torture, killing, etc. ARE objectively wrong. Therefore, because torture, killing, etc. happen to innocent people, if God exists, then God allows objectively wrong things to happen. " 'Are these babies [with anencephaly] loved by God?' Yes. 'Does God show his love through vicious murder?' No." " 'However, instead, he chooses to watch them happening and do nothing about them.' No he doesn't." We have already established that God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, then God could choose to stop babies from being born with anencephaly and dying in the first few weeks of their life. There are only two options: 1. God is omnipotent. Therefore, he can do anything. Therefore, he can stop torture, killing, etc. from happening, but he still doesn't. 2. God is not omnipotent. We have already established that God is omnipotent, so this option is ruled out. Killing a baby within the first few weeks of their life would be deemed cruel if done by a human. However, God lets it happen through nature every single day. " 'Pro gives the examples of "intellectual phenomena such as logic or reason" as things that cannot be created by something that does not possess them itself.' No I didn't, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part." Allow me to show the exact quotes where Pro states what Pro claims he didn't state. Each of these quotes is drawn directly from the first paragraph of his argument. ALL CAPS is added in some places to show Pro's self-contradiction. "it is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself." "NO ENTITY THAT CONTAINS no personal characteristics, NO INTELLECTUAL PHENOMENA SUCH AS LOGIC OR REASON, no love, and no life of its own, three qualities that the atheist believes the universe lacked at some point, COULD POSSIBLY BE THE SOURCE OF SUCH QUALITIES IN ANY OTHER ENTITY" It is clearly visible that Pro has contradicted himself. " 'The first unicellular organisms had no "logic or reason". However, as unicellular organisms evolved, they became more and more complex.' No they didn't. 'Eventually, neuron cells developed.' No they didn't." I provide source (2) as an explanation of how unicellular organisms evolved and neuron cells developed. Claiming that these events didn't happen requires one of the following two conditions: 1. Scientists are lying or incompetent. This statement is impossible to prove, as neither Pro nor I are experts on the evolution of unicellular organisms. Instead, I provided a source from experts (2), while Pro has provided nothing. 2. God is real. Using this claim to prove that unicellular organisms didn't evolve into more complex beings is question-begging (3). I am not arguing that unicellular organism evolution is the only possible way that logic and reason could have been created. Instead, I am disproving Pro's claim that "it is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself" by providing an example of such an event. " 'The argument of "something from nothing" is, so far, the only argument that Pro has presented.' I did not present such an argument, no: That is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part." Allow me to explain. The "something from nothing" argument is Pro's argument that "it is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself." This argument is the only argument that Pro has presented so far. I would also appreciate if you could be more courteous in this debate. After all, that is one of the ways that the debate will be scored, and you have been somewhat rude in your Round Two argument, saying things like "You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)" when there are still two rounds left. Please be more respectful so that we may have a reasonable debate based on facts and logic. Sources: (1) https://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (3) http://www.txstate.edu...