God Probably Exists

== Rebuttal == (R1) Why is there religion?OV: This doesn't link. Religion is irrelevant to God as defined -- while religions often *do* cling to a concept of God, that does *not* necessarily mean that religion is a result of God as defined here. I'm arguing nothing of that sort, so this is merely a straw-man of my position. (1) First, Pro's argument is a defense. A “defense” is an argument that does not provide a reason to vote for one's own side, and rather mitigates the opponent's side. Per the Voting Guide, voters shouldn't vote on defenses anyway. Pro merely uses a red herring, saying “what created the universe?” is a common justification for God's existence. But it is *not* my justification, therefore voters can entirely discredit Part 1. Additionally, the “what created God?” question fails to negate, because it *assumes* the Principle of Sufficient Reason. [1] While religion could have been created as an explanation for this, it, nonetheless, is irrelevant to my stance. (2) Once more, this *absolutely fails to link.* Even if religion was created to please the masses, which is a *bare assertion,* it completely fails to show how God does not exist. I'm not asserting that God created religion, so the argument just fails to negate at all. Additionally, voters can discredit this because it is a bare assertion, therefore is unjustified. Pro establishes a false dichotomy between atheism and religion. I am *not,* as I have previously mentioned, advocating for “religion.” In the debate, I'm debating in favor of *theism,* not religion. “Belief in God” is not synonymous with “religion.” Additionally, Pro asserts that neither of our positions can be proven -- but my arguments have *necessitated* God, therefore I have shown that God exists. Conclusion : This argument fails for three reasons -- it doesn't link at all, it is a defense, and I am *not* supporting “religion,” so this commits a red herring fallacy [2], and is a straw man of my position. [3] (R2) Atheism vs. God (1) Once more, this is a red herring. God is *not defined* as a being that “answers prayers,” nor am I advocating for a God of the Bible. This doesn't link to the resolution at all, so the prayer argument can be discredit, because (a) God is merely the “creator and ruler of the universe,” *not* one that answers prayers, and (b) this isn't any religious interpretation of God, merely a *generic* one. Extend OV from (R1). (2) The DNA argument does not link. God is not defined as the “creator of life,” therefore evolution *does not* hinder God's existence in any way. Evolution is a fact, and is undeniable. [4] Additionally, this is also a defensive argument, i.e. it only tries to mitigate my side, instead of showing that God likely does not exist, or providing any reason for voters to vote Con. This fails to negate because it does not link, and is a defense. (3) This does not impact God's existence in any way. Extend OV from (R1) -- I am arguing for a *generic God,* not a God of any religion. Religion is irrelevant to the God mentioned here. The differentiation in religion is a defense, and *does not refute God's existence directly.* == Summary == Con's arguments do not show that God does not exist. Con *concedes* there is no evidence for atheism, which is a key concession, and ensures that Con is unable to fulfill their BoP. Con presents two straw-man arguments that do not link to the resolution, or to “God” as defined, and only target religion. The majority of Con's arguments are defenses as well. Therefore, voters can presume Con. == Sources == [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...