The Existence Of Everything Including Life Is Unavailing WIthout God

I. Is there even a God? Pro failed to provide a rebuttal or proof of God in his latest round. I therefore extend all arguments as they currently remain standing unchallenged. For the record, arguments posted in the comment section are null and void in relation to the actual debate. Voters cannot let there decision be influenced by what is said in the comments. I'll ask Pro to place that argument in his next debate round if he wishes for it to be considered by the judges. II. There are many people who live useful and successful lives without accepting the existence of a God. Pro assumes that if you don't believe in God, then you believe the universe was caused "by nothing for nothing for no reason. "He fails to see that it's not so black and white. Science is currently providing answers as to what caused the universe (through the big bang) and are currently unveiling the unknowingness of the universe. A lack of belief in God does not necessarily mean they lack belief in everything. This is the whole point of science, to create factual systems of knowledge which allow for a greater understanding of the universe we live in. So, not only do agnostics and atheists not believe in nothing - but they are relying on systems of knowledge to gain an understanding - that's an even firmer foundation than mere beliefs. Pro additionally asks me how "something can come from nothing". .. it's not my burden to prove such a thing. My opponent incorrectly assumes that a lack of belief in God automatically implies a belief in nothing. This is simply wrong. There are many other religions that don't believe in the Abrahamic tradition of a creator god, and many non-religious individuals who believe in other forms of divinity. To assume that it is either one or the other is just a case of having a closed-mind, it does nothing to affirm Pro's position aside from showing that he does not acknowledge other religions or really anything aside from a creator god concept. In response to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, it's basically saying that:1- For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.2- For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.3- For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true. [1][1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...If my opponent wishes to stand by this principle - then he must first prove gods existence due to his belief that such an existence is the cause. Without that proof, this principle has no grounds upon which to stand. Pro then states, "When did I mention that the lives of those who do not believe in God are unsuccessful? I did not type that their lives are useless either. .. " In response to that statement, if Pro looks at the definition of "unavailing" which I provided previously he will see that this is exactly what he is saying. After my point about Albert Einstein, Pro responds by stating that, "In a Godless world, he and everyone would still die regardless about your opinions about the man and a "successful life" is irrelevant to the topic at hand. .. "People die regardless of if there is a God or not, so this response is moot. My opponent is also mistaken by saying that "successful lives" are irrelevant, this can be seen in the definition of "unavailing" once again. My point in showing 25 atheists who have actually lived "availing" lives is not irrelevant. It's direct proof that his position is incorrect in regards to the terms he himself chose to use. Pro is debating this from a Christian perspective and continues to assume that life is meaningless without a god. Pro cannot prove what happens post-death, he can only share stories found in a book. So his assumptions are not only unfounded, but remain unproven as well. III. Existence of everything (else)My opponents reply to this point was that it "begs the question "why does anything & everything exist? ", without a reason, there can be no purpose and all that's left to describe everything in general as a temporary pleasure/pass time before you die where you will not be conscious at all. "Pro is, again, failing to understand or accept that science is providing that "reason" as we speak. He, again, assumes that without a belief in God there can be no purpose to life. This is an offensively closed view of the world. Perhaps the purpose for the agnostic/atheist is to have children and pass their genetic lineage down. Perhaps it's to be the richest man alive. The whole "purpose" of life is subjective within itself and relative to each individual for differing reasons. The only people that believe life has no purpose without god are Christians, yet he extends such a thing to every living thing. It's absurd, unfounded, unproven, and an attempt by Pro to make a belief system stand as an objective purpose. Pro fails to recognize that if it WAS an objective purpose, more than a minority of people alive would believe it. But it's not. Hence this argument fails to affirm his position due to the subjectivity and relativity that Pro fails to acknowledge. IV. Without God (a necessary being) the strive to survive in life is only avoiding the inevitable (Death) and is unavailingOkay, so according to Pro it is "stupid to strive to survive just to live longer". This is nothing more than his own biased belief. He has not given any proof to show the validity of his own opinion. Why is it stupid? Pro needs to answer this question before I can even acknowledge this claim as anything more than a biased opinion. Nothing in life will change the fact that we will still die. Even a belief in God won't change that fact. So, again, pro fails to affirm his position and relies solely on his own biased opinions. Until he can prove that it's "stupid", this line of argumentation stands moot. V. why continue to survivePro failed to provide a rebuttal to this line of argumentation in his previous round. I therefore extend all arguments as they remain standing unchallenged. Once again, something posted in comments is not valid for being considered in this debate. VI. Unitarian UniversalismPro failed to provide a rebuttal to this line of argumentation in his previous round. I therefore extend all arguments as they remain standing unchallenged. In closing, Pro has dropped several arguments, provided biased opinions which lack any and all proof, used circular reasoning to affirm a point that is merely subjective and relative, and decided to post an additional 8,000 characters worth of arguments in the comment section which can't even be considered as part of this debate. I have provided rebuttals for each point raised, shown that non-religious individuals can live "availing" lives, and have thus effectively negated the resolution. I now return the floor to Pro.