The Proof that God exists IS Mans unique existence.

Short form answer: Nothing new from Pro. He needs to offer some actual arguments in support of the topic he started, instead of a slew of non arguments and unrelated topics. Long form answer: Pro is obviously a little riled by the dissection of his reasoning and has resorted to mimicry in order to project himself more successfully in this debate. Pros peevish reuse of my opening to Round 2, is a form of plagiarism. Lucky for Pro that I regard this as the highest form of compliment. So thank you. Pro in a debate format try and become less emotional and more open, calm and rational. Peevishness is not an attractive quality and ultimately self-destructive. But one thing is now crystal clear - he has nothing new to say if he has to copy me. On a positive note I am glad to see Pro has refrained from quoting the bible. He still has a tendency to proselytise rather than debate, so I just politely ask again that he tries to control has understandable zeal for his religious faith in a formal debate setting. It is difficult to know where to start with a response like the one in Round 3 from Pro. But I will sub-divide it in 3 main areas (and apologies for missing anything): 1)Pros rebuttal of my Round 2 (barely on topic and does not support his argument) 2)Pro railing against science (off topic and does not support his argument) 3)Pros attempt to build language and information science metaphors into the study of DNA (off topic and does not support his argument) ------------------------------------------------- 1)Pros rebuttal of my Round 2 He has reverted to attacking me rather than my arguments. He accuses me of living in some kind of imagined fairy tale world. I don"t have to respond to this nonsense. I will just reassure Pro that I reject idealism, thus I do not believe in any imagined anything (including the Christian God). However, Pros failure to grasp of irony is as delicious as the irony itself. He states I am in an imagination land. Here is someone who believes he has knowledge of unknowable, invisible, magical being, who lives in some kind of eternal, non-existent realm, that can make whole universes appear in 6 days, make snakes that talk and that thinks amongst the most important moral advice we need is to not be jealous of your neighbours donkey. Child abuse, racism, subjugation of women not important enough topics for the creator of the universe, but donkey jealousy apparently is! Does that sound real or imagined? Pro states: "That Con does not think the question is beyond first base is equal to how his science operates". Firstly it is not my science but an achievement of mankind, secondly I have pointed out logical (see philosophy) and not scientific flaws in your reasoning, thirdly I think you are mistaken in assuming I am offering a scientism or scientistic (a philosophical view inspired by science). Scientism does not form the base of my philosophy. I do not believe scientific theories, I accept them as the best current explanation of the facts about our reality. Science is perhaps the best bull-droppings detector we have, but it is not a philosophy. Pro continues to assert that I am not addressing the subject as he puts it "man and his creator". I have explained to Pro (twice) that this is question begging. His aim is to prove a god exists (see title of debate), he then wants us to assume this conclusion in his premises, so we can only debate against his logically fallacious and arbitrary standards. Of course Homo Sapiens are unique, so are Darwins Bark Spiders, Blue Whales and Cheetahs. If you: a) do not accept that human cognitive abilities are only a result of higher brain function; and b) you already pre-committed to humans being set apart from the animal kingdom (ie not to be classified as animals), Then there is nothing anyone can say to you. You are sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the fact that we are apes (genetically, morphologically, phylogenetically, taxonomically etc etc etc). What evidence can I show to someone, who doesn"t respect evidence? I have tried multiple times to show you why your reasoning is invalid, which I summarised for you: P1 Unique amongst living organisms, humans are capable of higher forms of conscious$ activity (poetry, philosophy, science etc) P2 No other living organism can meet the standards established by humans P3 Such incredible ability can only be the result of Supernaturalism (Christianity) C1 Therefore it follows that the Christian God exists $ Insert here any such claim: speech, bipedalism etc I have tried to help you improve your argument by drawing an analogy for you. It is meant to show you how his your argument can equally be used to justify the absurd: P1 Unique amongst living organisms, spiders (eg Darwin's Bark Spider) are capable of naturally producing a substance over 5x$ stronger than steel P2 No other living organism can meet the standards established by spiders P3 Such incredible ability can only be the result of Arachnid Supernaturalism (Great Goddess of Teotihuacan) C1 Therefore it follows the Great Goddess of Teotihuacan exists $ "Spider dragline silk has a tensile strength of roughly 1.3 GPa. The tensile strength listed for steel might be slightly higher"e.g. 1.65 GPa, but spider silk is a much less dense material, so that a given weight of spider silk is five times as strong as the same weight of steel" Pro has already had 2 rounds to correct my summary of his argument if it is incorrect, lazy or inept. He has had 2 opportunities to offer an objective reason to believe any premise, stop question begging and inform us how these things can be true only as a result of supernaturalism. Instead there is nothing put a deafening silence, followed by cries of incredulity that I do not accept his view and slews of rehashed creationist arguments which do not support his premises. 2)Pro railing against science This is an off-topic rant and does not support Pros premises. Here we have a slightly maniacal opening statement "Hear this and BE WARNED". The rest of it is a rather disappointing (especially after the opening), wearisome and rambling attack. A reasonable summary of which is "those rubbish scientists are naughty men, saying some nasty things that upset me about not needing a god to explain stuff anymore. Boo-hoo I don"t like it". Oh please! You should stop wallowing in self pity just because science has rolled back the ignorance of the iron age mysticism of Christianity. Yes the earth is not flat, it revolves around the sun and graves do not open for zombies to creep out. Your disdain for science, because it doesn"t match your particular shard of Christianity is palpable. You gave an argument in this debate to justify your position, stating that 2bn people are Christians and that helps prove Christianity is true! Well 1.2bn of the 2bn Christians are Catholics, and when I last looked, the papal edict was the evolution should be accepted. If you are going to argue consistently and bravely you now have to accept evolution or reject your own argument ad populum, or do both. Which is it? Again he repeats some total nonsense: "Yep, you got it here first people . Earth EVOLVED, FORGET and IGNORE HOW helpless newborns, without benefit of food, water or protection grew to adulthood. Science says it and that's it!" I am not sure you are even really being serious? Are you just trolling me? Pro it is not the view of science that first there was no life, and then some babies appeared that needing feeding and protection. You need to get out more, or read or something. This is just embarrassing for you, I can only help by suggesting that you do not persist with this line of attack. I am not a professional scientist, but seriously Pro come on. Science tells us the first life forms were uni-cellular, usually clumped in blooms, and self replicated by binary fission (no Mummys, Daddys and babies until later in Earths history, when we had the evolution of multi-cellular animals). I literally have no idea why you think the genetic similarity of homo sapiens is an important argument for your debate topic. Perhaps you would like to draw me a sketch of why this fact supports only a supernatural hypothesis and not a natural one. An alternative explanation to me (without researching it) would be because homo sapiens split off from other hominid species relatively recently (100 - 200k years ago) and has therefore had limited time to diverge. But surely this is a problem for you and not me. If you accept that through time a 0.1% variance can accumulate, you have to open to accept that it could happen again and again, until we break the species boundaries. Then we would have a speciation event in the population (macro-evolution). PS Sean Carroll is right! 3)Pros attempt to build language and information science metaphors into the study of DNA This is off-topic and does not support your premises so I will limit my responses. I know creationists love this stuff, but I fail to see why they think it is such a powerful argument. Never have so many words, died in vain on a page!. Is DNA a sort of language? Not really and not in the sense invoked by Pro. Does it contain "information"? Sort of if you are struggling for a better analogy on how it builds the living organism it represents? I would argue it is better described as data rather than information (although this analogy is also flawed). But then snowflakes can be said to contain data (or "information"), so can sand on a beach or iron filings. If you want to take this question on bravely, you also have to concede that anything could be said to contain data ("information"). Life also contains the data ("information") needed to build itself but also contains data ("information") from its parents, the environment, species lineage, defunct features etc. This is further evidence of evolution, not of being 'poofed' into existence by magic.