This shack would state: God has existence in our reality

Before I begin responding to Pro's arguments I think it is important to understand the burden of proof, as it is relative to understanding why Pro has failed to make a case for the resolution. Many people confuse the burden of proof with the standard of evidence. This misconception stems most commonly from an understanding of the justice system imbedded in all of us where the prosecution is noted for having the burden of proof and responsible for proving the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course the burden itself, and the requirement of how strongly the case must be proven are two very different things. Having the burden simply means that you have the responsibility to make the case. How strongly you must prove your case is another concept. Philosophically speaking, the burden of proof rests on the person who makes the claim. Any claim. In this case Pro is claiming that God exists within our reality. He must prove that case. Since the standard of evidence is not specified, it is rational to conclude that in this context Pro's case must be made strongly enough to justify belief. An acceptable definition of belief is to accept that something is more likely than not. If someone said they thought the chances of a proposition being true was 50/50 we would not say that they believe either side of the proposition. Based on this what I believe to be non-controversial interpretation, Pro must prove that God's existence is more likely than not. 50/50 is simply not good enough, and suggesting something is possible doesn't do it either because possibility does not affirm probability. Argument number one Pro argues that a cause must be greater than its effect, and that this leads us to conclude that since our world is perfect and finite, the cause must be perfect infinite. First of all, Pro doesn't even define "greater" which is necessary to understanding his argument. Greater is a subjective term. It is not an inherent quality in anything, it is a description of how the qualities of one subject compare to the qualities of others against a subjectively chosen standard. For Pro to make his point he must explain what his standards are for greatness in this context, and how his standards leads us to his conclusion. He must also explain why we should accept his statement as true, given that a match can burn down an entire house. I am sure he is not about to argue that a match is greater. The second part of his argument is even more fallacious. Claiming that something finite must be caused by something infinite or that something imperfect must be caused by something perfect is just plain nonsense. Not only does Pro have no examples of anything infinite or perfect in our reality to support his claim with, but when it comes to something perfect Pro is just playing with words. "Perfect", like "greater", is an entirely subjective term. Something can only be perfect in accordance with whatever criteria it being judged by. The term is meaningless as an argument for objective existence. Pro has made no case here. Argument number two Pro's case here seems to be a typical example of trying to define God into existence. Definitions that we give to words are nothing more than concepts. Concepts have no necessary tie to reality. Simply throwing in the word "necessary" doesn't change that fact.Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positiveAxiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positiveAxiom 3: The property of being God-like is positiveAxiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positiveAxiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property Axioms 1, 2, and 4, are true simply because refuting them would result in logically contradictory definitions. That says nothing about reality. Axioms 3 and 5 are true depending on how you define "positive", which is yet again another subjective term that is utterly meaningless as an argument trying to prove an objective existence of something. Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.T1. Nothing useful conveyed here.T2. Defines the property of being God-like. Does nothing to establish that this property exists.T3. Of course it does, because that is how Pro defined it. Nothing to do with reality.T4. Does not follow from any of the previous theorems. And again, calling something necessary doesn't make it necessary.Pro has made no case here.Argument number threeI have no idea what the hec Pro is trying to argue here. He states that naturalism cannot be equal to itself, which is a complete violation of the first law of logic, ie; The Law of Identity, ie; A=A. He then claims that this illogical statement leads us to conclude that if there is a natural system then there "best be a being to precede it". Pro has to make a coherent argument, he doesn't just get to state that there best be anything. And even if he had some kind of point here (which he most certainly does not) he still hasn't even bothered to try to explain how this claim leads us to conclude that whatever comes before nature must be a being.Pro has made no case here.SummaryPro has laid out three arguments, none of which make any connection from the premise to the conclusion making them all by definition, invalid. His arguments are therefore as useful as an argument that yesterday’s rainstorm in Switzerland affirms that the Cubs are going to win the World Series. He has utterly failed to uphold his burden, thus the resolution fails.