The God of classical theism is real.

Unfortunately, as I look out the window, as I am typing no less, and 3 inches of snow, I am convinced that I am not at Malibu Beach. I am somewhat mystified by my opponent's lack of confidence that he hasn't the free will to choose what he believes. He has stated more than once that he is not a Christian. That is a choice. He could choose to be one, yet he has chosen not to be. Many opportunities in life are a choice. On his very profile, my opponent indicates that he supports Barack Obama. Did he have the free will to choose Obama? Or was Obama assigned to him? Or did he choose Obama based on a comparison of available options? Why wasn't I assigned to Obama? Because we have the free will to choose. I appreciate many of Obama's ideas, however, Alan Keyes' platform better represents what I have CHOSEN to believe with own free will. Re-examining my opponent's arguments. 1. evil a. God does not cause evil. God allows evil. Extended, to say that God causes evil is an admission to God's existence. b To do good or to do evil is choice. A person can be choose to nice or they can choose to be cruel. c. God COULD make everything pleasant all the time, and FORCE everyone to believe in Him. God has not done this, He has allowed us the freedom to choose. 2. Human Reasoning a. My opponent fails to look at the argument through what John Calvin referred to as the spectacles of faith. My opponent has restricted his vision through the eyes of human comprehension based upon human discoveries in the less than perfect field of science. b. To the contrary, my opponent has provided nothing compelling for me to disbelieve. He has only provided examples limited to human ingenuity. To answer my opponent's question, I find it absolutely odd that 93% of the so-called "educated" dismiss God and the Bible and will choose to spend their eternity in the Lake of Fire for their unbelief. According to Scripture, (John 3:18)Failure to believe condemns a person to the Lake of Fire. God will not allow the mentally impaired to perish. Why? They do not possess the faculties to make such a choice. While Freeman and I are presently opponents, ultimately I truly hope for and will cheer for Freeman to accept Jesus as his savior before it is too late. According to Scripture, God's preservation and providence account for the continuity of the earth. Statistical improbability yet again reverts to limiting oneself to reliance upon a flawed system, which is a choice by the way. The answers you seek are in Scripture. Yet, you have chosen to reinvent the wheel by a less accurate method, science. Perhaps my opponent's self admitted frustration lies in the fact that he cannot convince me that Scripture is wrong. My frustration with my opponent is that he has limited himself to arguing with human reasoning and logic; but refuses to venture into the supernatural realm. Because we live in a society of continually progressive moral decay, I am supremely confident that the voters with similar notions to my opponent will vote as such. Unfortunately, I am equally confident that if they do not begin thinking outside of the box that Satan has entrapped them, they will join the 93% of modern academia in the lake of Fire. At which point it will too late to see that not only were they incorrect in their hypothesis, but also that the PRO should have won this debate. Thanks!