There is no evidence for the existence of a supreme deity.

First, I’d like to point out that my opponent did not make a response to my argument concerning “revelation” and did not refute my claims of attributing revelations to god being intellectually rational, so therefore concedes that and agrees. _________________________ I respond to the pro’s sole argument that is still in question: The argument from miracles or testimony My opponent says that anyone could write a book about a complete lie and this would not be considered evidence. My opponent is again correct, but there are differences. First, as I have said in my earlier rounds, there are multiple eye-witnesses and writings from people with various backgrounds that all talk about the miracles done by Jesus. You writing about how you have laser vision would be you, a non credible source, stating something that no one else supports. Because Jesus had numerous eye-witnesses and multiple sources that back up his miracles, his miracles are proven to be historically accurate. Yours, on the other hand, would have no support and thus could not be counted as evidence. So, an account of an event does actually count as external evidence because there is plenty of reasoning and proof to back it up. I’d also like to point out that no sources have been found contradicting the gospels [1], and this even more reinforces their validity. _________________________ I will defend my arguments: My opponent’s claim to macro evolution is that because species are changing, this means that they are evolving. “As an organisms environment changes, so some anatomical structures, through evolution, either lose all functionality or serve some new purpose. ” My opponent is incorrect in saying species are changing through macro evolution. Variation, or microevolution, does occur, but this in no way proves that macroevolution happens. Bacteria, no matter how much it varies over centuries, will always be bacteria, and thus evolution in the sense of new species developing is just incorrect. [2] I agree with my opponent: species vary and adapt to respond to their environment, but this does not make them new species altogether. So, his argument of macro evolution is actually an argument for microevolution, and it falls. However, as we are not exactly debating evolution, I will leave it at that. Morality My opponent argues that morality is just a form of altruism – that we should have a “selfless concern for the welfare of others. ” [3] In C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity (Book 1 Chapter 2), he objects to this type of “herd instinct”. [4] He states: “We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct… we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not…” I will not quote all of Lewis’ argument, but invite the pro and the voters to read it. Essentially his claim is that instincts (such as ones of helping others in animals) are not equal to the moral law. He uses the example of a man who sees another drowning. If his morality were based truly on instinct (like animals) he would either stay away for self-preservation or help the victim. But humans find, in addition to impulse, a third thing that tells you that you ought to help – this is morality. So, morality is not equal to the actions of social animals. As Lewis puts it, “You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys. ” [4] This connects to my overall argument because if morality, as I have shown, is not merely animal-like instinct, then it must come from something else – a supreme being. Creation God does not need a cause because it is within the definition of god: “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. ” [5] The important word of the definition is “the” – as in the creator, or the one who creates but was not created. If god creates everything (or the universe), how could he have a creator? He can't, so god does not need one. A carpenter is a creator, a parent is a creator, but everything but the creator needs to be created from something. Everything needs a beginning – this is obvious. Where would anything come from if it was not somehow created (except for a supreme being, as I just pointed out)? My opponent said I have not “disproven theories that the universe is simply cyclic and that the big bang was not the beginning but was a rebirth”, yet he himself does not give any reasoning that they are what he says. So, because this brief argument has no support, it can simply be thrown out. Impossibility of disproving existence My opponent is right in what he says, but misses the point of this section of my argument. It is for the voters to decide who has better evidence/arguments, so I will let them choose. However, my point is that because you are trying to prove that “there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme deity”, you cannot win. I can prove an affirmative, and thus disprove a negative by proving that affirmative. However, you cannot reinforce a negative and disprove the affirmative. In your example, I can assume that you are unholy because of lack of evidence, but technically I cannot prove it. By saying “no evidence”, you stated that no evidence ever is given for existence of a supreme deity, and this is just impossible to prove. So, as I have said before, the pro will lose because he cannot do what it is his job in this debate to do. _________________________ I assume round four will be reserved for voters. So, I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic. It was very interesting, and I wish him luck. [1] . http://carm.org... [2] . http://www.newgeology.us... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.pbs.org... [5] . http://dictionary.reference.com...