"god"

I was hoping my opponent would define a few things in his opening argument, but it appears that he has not. As such, allow me to take a few minutes to do so and to frame the debate. First of all, my opponent has not assigned burden of proof in this debate. In a normal debate, Pro has the burden of proof to prove the resolution. However, since the resolution is not actually a resolution and appears to be more of a general topic for the debate, we must draw a conclusion as to what the resolution is based on the statements of con. In this case there are several distinct points. From the first round we see the followingA) The idea of a supreme being is just impossible. There are absolutely no cluse pointing to that conclusion. B) "God" is just something man created to fill the gaps that couldn't be explained through science due to lack of technology or intelligence. C) Evolution makes total sense and has proof and countless scientific discoveries in it's favor. From the second round we see the followingD) If God existed there should be no hurt or war or violence or crimes in the perfect universe. If we look at the claims made by Con, they are all positive claims. That is, they all assert something to be true. This fact, combined with the fact that Con is the instigator of this debate, leads me to argue that Con in fact holds the burden of proof in this debate. It is therefore Con's burden to prove that each of the previous points are true, and that they somehow cohere to disprove the existence of God. In addition, my opponent has not defined what concept of God we are discussing. Since he has alluded to the classic problem of evil, and the ideal of an omnimaximal being, I shall assume that he is arguing against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Allow me to address the points that my opponent has asserted. For the sake of clarity, I shall retain the lettering scheme previously used. A) My opponent claims that the idea of a supreme being is impossible. However, this is a totally unsupported point. As he has made no real argument. In fact, I would argue that the idea of there not being a supreme being is much more unlikely than there being a supreme being. Simply put, some beings are better than others. If we observe the food chain, we see that ultimately there must be a top to the chain. In terms of predation, there must be a predator which is not prey. A lion has no natural predators, nor does a shark. This concept lends itself well to the discussion of a supreme being. If we observe that there are some beings that have more supreme beings existing, and some that have less. We can safely extrapolate that there is both a being that has no lesser being, and also a being that has no greater. The only way this would not be the case is if there were an infinite number of beings. B) My opponent has also claimed that God simply exists in the gaps in our ability to describe nature. While this may be true for some people, particularly ancient cultures, it need not be. Although the concept of a Judeo-Christian God does have explanatory power, this is certianly not the only function it fulfills. Christians often find peace and comfort in relationship with their Lord. They find salvation in His crucifixion and resurrection. His life serves as a moral exemplar and rule of life. Simply put, God may or may not fill the gaps, but that is far from all he does or is. Beyond this, my opponent has done nothing to support this contention, and therefore it can be discarded. C) Yet again we see a lack of any kind of support for the sweeping statement my opponent has made. Even the most advanced evolutionary scientist would admit that there are still things that we do not understand, and the theory is being revised constantly to fit new evidence. If it made complete sense, no new evidence would force us to change the theory in any way. Furthermore, the fact that evolution may make sense does not exclude the existence of God. Several schools in Christian Theology not only acknowledge, but embrace the idea that God guided the evolutionary process. In fact, the debate between theistic evolution and classic creationism is one of the most intense debates in the Christian world. D) My opponent alludes to the problem of evil. Once again he provides no evidence, and since we have no definition of God from which to argue, it is impossible to construct an indepth response. However, once again, my opponent assumes that the idea of pain and suffering is some how antithetical to the Judeo-Christian God. In Christian theology, Humans were created with freedom. If they exercised that freedom to obey and serve God then they would live in a paradise for all time in perfect union with God. If they exercised that freedom to disobey God, they would bring death and suffering to the world. According to Genesis chapter 3, they chose to disobey God. It is not God who is responsible for evil and suffering, rather it is humanity's disobedience and sinfulness. I shall leave my remarks at that. I look forward to my opponent's closing round. Thank you.