The existence of God is unlikely

I’m disappointed with Con, because he did not follow the rules that I laid out in the beginning of this debate. I stated specifically that round 2 was for opening statements and that round 3 was for first rebuttals. Con either ignored that or at least was careless and didn’t bother to look at the rules. Instead of coming up with his own arguments in round 2, he jumped right into the rebuttals. This is unfair, and I feel like he should lose points for not even making an argument. However, I’m willing to look past that for now, and will go ahead and respond to his rebuttals. Con says that God is omnipotent, and therefore he can violate logic with no inconstancy. In other words, God can do things that are logically contradictory. However, this is completely false. That which is logically contradictory is not possible. Period. There’s no way around that. A married bachelor, for example, is logically impossible. Why? Because a bachelor by definition is not married. So to say that God can do contradictory things is simply wrong. I should also mention that divine omnipotence does not mean the power to do absolutely anything. When we say God is omnipotent, we mean that he can all that is logically possible. NOT what is logically impossible like contradictions. In fact, this is actually consistent with the bible. In Hebrews 6:18 it says “it is impossible for God to lie", and in James 1:13 it says “God cannot be tempted by evil.” This all shows that Con is simply mistaken when he says God can do absolutely anything. I would now like to go through some of the objections raised to my argument from evil. Con states that premise 1 is incorrect because God is omnipotent and therefore can create gratuitous evil while still being morally perfect. But this is false. Because if God did create gratuitous evil, then he would not be morally perfect. God would only allow evil if he had a morally sufficient reason for it. If he created unnecessary or pointless evil he would not be an all-loving God. So this objection by him fails. Con states that premise 2 is a given (which means that it’s a known or established fact) and that God could define all of that gratuitous evil as morally good. However, this is again false. If something is good only because God says it’s good, then that means morality is very subjective, and what’s good is only based on the random decisions of God. So if God told us that torturing babies was good, it would be good. But surely this is absurd and nobody believes that’s how morality works. Not even Christians accept this idea of morality. A better view to take on this issue would be that morality is not based on God, but based on what is already good. In other words, that which is good is independent of God. This is the standard Euthyphro dilemma, which shows that morality can’t be based only on God and that there is more to good and evil. Finally, Con says that God could be all-hating and all-loving because he’s omnipotent. But again, as I have already pointed out earlier, omnipotence doesn’t mean the ability to the logically impossible. And of course it’s logically impossible for God to be all-hating and all-loving because it’s a contradiction. Conclusion In summary, Con has failed to put forth an argument of his own for the existence of God, and instead decided to ignore the rules laid out in the beginning to go straight into rebuttals. Not only that, but his rebuttals were unsound and failed to refute my argument from evil. This debate feels pointless because now it’s disorganized due to Con breaking the rules. I don’t mean to come off as harsh, but I think Con should forfeit the debate because he ruined it. I’d be willing to debate him again on a new forum, but for now I think I deserve the win because he broke the rules. Sources http://biblehub.com...http://biblehub.com...