There are no good reasons to think theism is true

My opponent makes some wild claims compounded with sophisticate attacks that led to this debate challenge and he honestly believes this resolution to be true. I call him on his massive burden and now he chokes? Nothing in round 1 indicated my opponent denied he is Pro and Instigator and the resolution was phrased for his burden. If my opponent wanted a shared burden or me to understand the burden was shared, he should have restated his resolution to something like, resolved: “Atheism is more reasonable” or some such resolution. He then cites Craig’s debates, in which both Craig and the opponent assert a positive claim. The resolutions in those debates are clearly NOT the above resolution. Craig makes concessions for shared burden of proof or the atheists would never ‘function’ nicely as a mop for Craig. Sam Harris admits as much [1] and Dawkins tacitly concedes [2] This appears to ‘set me up’ to look unjust and purely a circumstantial ad hominem. I called him on his assertion and He challenged me. To the content: Was my opponents PoE evidential or Logical? Logical PoE [3] Evidential PoE [4] “ Evidential arguments from evil attempt to show that, once we put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, … Such arguments are not to be confused with logical arguments from evil, which have the more ambitious aim of showing that, in a world in which there is evil, it is logically impossible—and not just unlikely—that God exists.” [4] The Evidential PoE is not about logical consistency but is saying there is no good evidence to believe the theological claims of the Theologians explanation for evil. Did my opponent grab the correct premises from Rowe? Here is the most up to date PoE version from its pioneer Rowe, which my opponent sourced in R1:[5] P1: No good we know of justifies an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being in permitting horrendous evils P2: No good at all justifies an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being in permitting horrendous evils C) There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. Let me be clear with a couple of succinct points: 1: The evidential PoE must ignore all surrounding reasons for theism to even be asserted. My opponent needs to presuppose the resolution is true already to even assert the evidential PoE, which is circular reasoning and fallacious for this debate “Evidential arguments from evil attempt to show that, once we put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being.”[4] 2: The PoE is NOT a logical problem “the evidential … problem of evil, which seeks to show that the existence evil, although logically consistent with the existence of God, counts against the truth of theism.” 3: The PoE is a problem of evidential justification for belief. It is at its face a limited deductive fallacy, and claims there is no physical evidence to assert the theological explanations of horrendous evil existing in a compatible reality of God being all good. So are there good scientific evidences that the Theologians are correct and P2 of the evidential PoE is wrong? I cited these in round 1 to head off this line of rebuttal: 1: Memory diminishment of events of pain and suffering and soul awareness [6] 2: 3rd Primal awareness (self awareness to suffering) is shown by brain studies to only exist within higher primates. Animals are unaware of their suffering as a worm is unaware. [7] We by these scientific evidences, conclude there is very good indication suffering is not as horrendous as claimed and second that God has a way of dealing with it that is evident by practical and scientific means. *** Arguments for Theism: Cumulative Case: My opponent attempts to reface the 3 contentions with anecdotal accusations of assumptions and inferences. He denies the cumulative case these 3 contentions represents. I already cited Standford Philosophical Department that such criticism is invalid to head off just such an attempt from my opponent. I will again cite: “That question is: why do design arguments remain so durable if empirical evidence is inferentially ambiguous, the arguments logically controversial, and the conclusions vociferously disputed? One possibility is that they really are better arguments than most philosophical critics concede. Another possibility is that design intuitions do not rest upon inferences at all.”[ibid] Standford Philosophy dept. Contingency) P1 - is not an assumption but a working ‘more plausible than not’ premise. My opponent cannot call this an assumption. Is there another scenario besides caused and uncaused entities? - Also does my opponent suggest there is more than caused and uncaused things in existence? This rebuttal seems absurd to my mind. P2 - to cite M-theory with no evidentiary support to the Creator God of Theism evidenced throughout history is appalling. That is tacitly saying “anything but God!” That is not a working denial of P2. My opponent to deny this would have to show why that ‘other cause’ is MORE plausible than God. He appears to merely state he does not understand God as a causal agent. Does this not merely amount to the fact that he has no background with a theological framework? To deny this premise, a more plausible causal agent must be shown. My opponent must: - Show that the cause of the universe does not submit to a logical problem of infinite regression, such a being is not possible and show something else is more plausible. Teleological) The teleological argument is the logical proof evidence that shows we can reasonably conclude the fine-tuning was for our purpose. Fine-tuning mathematics: My opponent cites complaints about fine-tuning that is not the process employed by Theistic fine-tuning. Craig rightly refutes. “Scientists grappling with fine-tuning are not asking what the universe would have been like if it were governed by different laws of nature. Rather they’re asking what the universe would have been like if it were governed by same laws of nature but with different values for the physical constants appearing in them and with different quantities for the initial conditions on which the laws operate. Nobody knows what a universe governed by different laws would be like![8] Alternate theories: My opponent says I have not dealt with the other “possibilities”. Any additional physical universe theory model is directly addressed under Physical necessity principle. Evidential) Contrary experience: My opponents reply here amounts to… He does not like the fact that Theology has an alternate explanation? The point was the claims have been tested and verified by the Theologians! You cannot discount the conclusion of the evidence based on one limited element that was already taken into account by the review process. Demographics: My opponents complain that cultures and theism run together. Correlation =/= Causation. My opponent states: “the fact that such experiences are expressed within specific cultural terms is surprising on theism” This line of retort is fallaciously affirming the consequence. ‘If theism does not explain it, then demographics are a problem; If demographics are a problem then theism has not explained it.’ This is patently false and fallacious. Many theistic views recognize a demographic design to God’s plan. Christianities view is God designed the family and tribe and laid out rules governing them. [1] The Great God debate 2, Video 2 of 9. Craig vs. Harris. 10:00 [2] http://www.bethinking.org... [3] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [4] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [5] http://www.jstor.org... [6] http://xoomer.virgilio.it... [7] http://ndpr.nd.edu... [8] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...