The Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist.

Per the rules of the debate, I will now offer rebuttals to my opponent's opening statements and defend my arguments as well.RebuttalsStupid DesignPro is trying to convince us that the universe is so stupidly designed that it is more rational to believe it was not designed at all. What makes the universe's eventual death a bad design in some objective way? Perhaps God doesn't need a universe that lasts forever. In fact, Christian theology is perfectly okay with a dying universe because God has foretold a New Earth. "Stupid design" is Pro's arbitrary opinion, and cannot be considered evidence for the objective truth claim that God almost certainly doesn't exit.The same rebuttal applies to his comments on the earth and humans. In fact, this entire line of argumentation absurd: If God exists, his designs of the universe, the earth, and humans would meet with our approval. I (and others) disapprove of the designs of the universe, the earth, and humans. Therefore, God does not exist. There is nothing objective about Pro's tacit approval that makes one iota of difference with regards to the existence of God.Impossible by His Own NatureOmnibenevolencePro criticizes Christian theology for citing faith as a major virtue. He says faith equals the sacrifice of critical thought. Faith is, in his estimation, the absence of reason. However, as I showed in my opening statements, my opponent has faith also. He also has presuppositions about reality. What does he have faith in? Reason. He condemns Christianity for faith in lieu of reason when he in fact has faith in reason itself. This is called special pleading. Pro wants the readers to reject Christians for having faith but praise and condone his own faith in reason.Pro says God is not good for punishing mankind for Adam and Eve's sin or for punishing us for "though crime." If God is objectively wrong, to what moral authority is Pro referring? Confucius? The voters? Neither of these are objective moral authorities. So yet again Pro is condemning God's actions according arbitrary moral rules. If we are going to permit moral subjectivity to win debates, perhaps I could just buy votes in my favor and claim victory.OmnisciencePro engages in a strawman fallacy when he asserts that God was testing Abraham or Job in order to find out how faithful they were, as though He didn't know. This is just poor exegesis at best and outright deception at worst. God clearly already knew Job was faithful1.OmnipotenceThe problem of evil is not a logical problem. God can be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good and still allow evil to exist so long as he has a morally good reason for doing so. It does not matter how indignant Pro is about evil and suffering. If God has a good reason, then there is no logical contradiction with his all-goodness.Epistemology and SciencePro says God's existence is a hypothesis. This is utterly fallacious thinking. It assumes that all things are proven the same way, which is a self-refuting position. The statement "all things are hypotheses that are proven true when all the evidence pointing to them are true" cannot be proven using evidence pointing to it. The statement is abstract in nature. It cannot be hypothesized and tested. The statement can only be proven true if it is false.My opponent has presuppositions about reality and so do I. Neither of us is capable of starting from a neutral position because of our presuppositions. God cannot be proven to exist in the atheist worldview because it's already presupposed that he can't. Nor can God be disproven in the Christian worldview because it's already presupposed that he exists. Thus, both sides (not just Christians) engage in circular reasoning when they attempt to treat the existence of God as a factual hypothesis. That's why we need a more philosophical approach to the question, which is where TAG comes in.Defense of TAGMy opponent just doesn't understand TAG. It has gone so far over his head, I don't know how to correct his numerous errors without repeating my entire opening arguments. I'll do my best to touch on the most glaring issues and defer to the readers' comprehension of TAG for the remainder.First, there is no "God of the Gaps" happening in this argument. I am using transcendental arguments to determine the necessary preconditions of logic, science, and morality. Transcendental arguments have the following form: P is a necessary precondition of Q Q is true Therefore, P is true The necessary precondition to ensure the law-like nature of logic is that logical laws are universal, invariant, and immaterial. The necessary precondition of science is the uniformity of nature. The necessary precondition of moral absolutes is the same as those of logical laws. They must be universal, invariant, and immaterial.From there, we compare Christian presuppositions to atheist presuppositions to see which worldview accounts for logic, science, and morality.To account for these things requires the worldview to satisfy all necessary preconditions mentioned above.Laws of LogicFirst of all, I never insisted that logic depends on God's existence. I did argue that only Christianity can account for the necessary preconditions that make logic reliable in gaining knowledge. Conversly, I asked Pro to show us how atheism can account for those necessary preconditions. While Pro did give us an anecdotal origin story of an early human using logic, it didn't account for anything. It's equivalent of asserting that we just started using logic. That is to say, Pro is begging the question being asked of him.Uniformity of NaturePro's account of the uniformity of nature using induction. I expressly showed why that is circular reasoning in my opening argument. He says that all evidence supports the hypothesis of the uniformity of nature. However, the evidence he cites is scientific, which presupposes the uniformity of nature. He's using scientific evidence, which relies on the principle of induction, to inductively prove the uniformity of nature.Furthermore, I never argued that the will of a deity was required for nature to be uniform. Rather, I argued that presupposing Christianity accounts for the uniformity of nature whereas presupposing atheism does not. There is a difference, and Pro's failure to understand this difference assures that he will not be able to rise to the occasion to refute TAG.Moral AbsolutesPro once again misunderstands my argument. I never claimed to do what centuries of philosophers could not. I never said "I know morality is objective." What I argued was that Pro and I both take objective morality for granted whenever we employ them in debate. Pro employed morality in his arguments as did I.But if we are to use morality in our arguments, then our worldviews ought to account for it. Pro does not do this for us. He gives us Confucius' Golden Rule, but that doesn't account for objective morality. I asked Pro to show how there can be moral absolutes in an atheist universe, and he didn't give us anything.ConclusionMy argument for the existence of God is that, without him, you cannot prove anything. Pro has yet to refute my assertions that atheism as a worldview cannot provide the necessary preconditions for logic, science, and morality. In fact, it appears that he doesn't fully understand the structure of TAG.Pro's claim in this debate is the God almost certainly does not exist. He offered his opinions of the design of the universe, the earth, and humans. He engaged in special pleading regarding faith. He uses arbitrary moral standards to criticize God's actions. He provided strawman interpretations of Christian scripture. He even goes so far to arbitrarily insist that God must be proven in the same way we prove any hypothesis.On balance, I think I have shown how my arguments and refutation outweigh Pro's.Sources http://www.biblegateway.com...