The Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist.

Note Before Actual Response* Would you kindly tell me how to embolden text? It would be quite useful for organizational purposes. *Actual Response* Transcendental Argument for God's Existence Before the actual rebuttal, I have one thing to say. "God of the Gaps" is a term used to describe an argument that states: "Because there is a gap in knowledge or understanding, God must be the answer." For example: I do not understand how humans appeared on this Earth. Ergo, God did it. I wish anyone who is reading this to reread Con's argument and decide whether a single one of his three points doesn't fall into this category. Having said that, let's get rolling. Con openly admits to not examining the existence of God based on evidence, preferring instead to examine it from a worldview which presupposes God. He was right when he said an argument regarding the existence of God can wind up begging the question. It is quite clear that Con's one conclusion is based on three premises, all of which presuppose the conclusion to be true. Laws of Logic Speaking of logic and its fallacies, let us examine both. Logic can be valid, but not true. For example, if all humans are potatoes, and I am a human, am I a potato? Yes, because that is the conclusion based on the premises. However, it is not true, because I am not a potato. The premise that all humans are potatoes is false, and therefore, so is its conclusion. Now, Con's logic is: If logic exists, and it can only exist because God exists, does God exist? I would concede that he would, were those premises true. However, he has not proven at all that the existence of concepts such as logic or math depend on the existence of any God. I'd propose it's more likely the result of evolution: "If I don't run, I'll be eaten by this other animal; I don't want to be eaten by this other animal; I should run" is the product of evolution, not God. I'd say mine is a more likely conclusion. Uniformity of Nature I could say argument from ignorance and leave it at that. Fortunately, I can do what Con does not seem to be able to do: Account for the apparent uniformity of nature without invoking the will of a deity which breaks the laws of nature. I do this by simply invoking the scientific method once more: 1. Above the level of quantum theory, which is in its infancy, and therefore, its ignorance, all evidence supports the hypothesis of uniformity in nature 2. Again, without regard to the present uncertainty regarding quantum theory, there is no evidence that contradicts the hypothesis of uniformity in nature 3. Ergo, we conclude the hypothesis of uniformity in nature to be true Now, as far as I can tell, I have accounted for the ability to presume uniformity in nature. However, in the case that Con demonstrates otherwise, I am still awaiting with baited breath anything more than a textbook logical fallacy. Moral Absolutes I'm quite surprised to see Con so readily affirming that moral absolutes exist. Whether they do or not has been a question to philosophers for thousands of years, so I humbly request to observe the proof available to him of its existence that has eluded the greatest minds humanity has ever known. Now, I half expect Con to suggest that I was the one to assert it existed by criticising the actions of the Abrahamic God as immoral. Note that I did not say that sacrificing newborns to a deity was wrong then. I do, however, humbly appeal to the subjective morality of the voters, as to whether or not such a thing is wrong, at the very least, presently. But herein we have a contradiction. The moral standards set forth by the Abrahamic God assert themselves as perfect, eternal, and closed to debate or interpretation. From this, we have one of two conclusions: Either it is morally justified to sacrifice your newborn child when you believe a deity is requesting it from you, or God demanded an unjust act. I believe it is the latter. So here we see how this one point fails in two ways: 1. It presupposes an objective morality, and therefore an objective adjudicator 2. It presupposes that the actions of the Abrahamic God (destroying cities, demanding human sacrifice, ect.) were, are, and will always be perfectly moral. This, I submit to you, would not be the case, were there actually a God to commit them. I would like to submit to you an alternative to the adjudication of a supreme, divine dictator, to determine an action's morality. This is solidarity. Confucius created what we now call the Golden Rule, and he did it 500 years before Jesus of Nazareth was even born. It is commonly said as, "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you". In this, we have the very foundation of the ethical teachings of nearly all major religions, including, of course, Christianity. It encompasses all actions undertaken except of those by sadomasochists. It is also a necessity of evolution: "I don't want to be eaten my a pack of wolves. I am less likely to be eaten by a pack of wolves if I am in a group of fellow humans. Humans won't want me in their group if I kill them or steal their food or do other things to undermine their ability to survive, so I won't do those things." I submit my scenario is more likely than a supernatural adjudicator who kills and tortures. In summary: "TAG determines which worldview is the most rational by determining which one best accounts for the preconditions of human experience" Con hasn't accounted for anything, but has rather said God did it and left it at that, and has done so for his three points of his one argument. What I have said to account for them, is: Logic: It is more likely logic exists because of an evolutionary necessity than because a being which defies logic created it. Natural Consistency: Scientific evidence supports the validity of scientific evidence. And yes, I know how that sounds, but using science to explain science is more rational than using God to explain God. Morality: Again, evolution explains concepts of morality, objective or otherwise. Moreso than a morally abhorrent supernatural adjudicator. Conclusion: The resolution isn't that I need to support the stance of atheism any more than my opponent needs to justify the stance of a theist. I need to demonstrate that the Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist, and my opponent must do the opposite. This debate is not about the uncertainty of atheistic views about certain concepts vs theistic views of those same concepts. It is that the Abrahamic God does exist vs that same God does not exist. For this reason, I believe I am not subjected to the argument from ignorance (if you can't explain it as otherwise, my explanation is correct) which my Con has declared will decide this debate. To quote Leplace, God is an unnecessary hypothesis. Everything works without Him. "He can argue for atheism (or against theism) only if Christianity is true." Why must Jesus of Nazareth be the son of God for me to use logic? Why must I believe a dead man came back to life after 3 days to hold a moral opinion? Why must I believe Jesus casted devils into 2,000 pigs and sent them to drown to employ science? Con still has all his work cut out for him. Assuming that everything he has said in Round 2 is true (which is, Q.E.D., a very generous assumption), he would not have made a case for anything but a deistic God. One that created the universe and its laws, and then walked away from it. Not one thing he has said supports the hypothesis that this god of his is a 'personal' god. One that answers prayers. One that judges our dreams as we sleep. One that punishes or rewards us for all eternity after we die. There is not one single thing Con has said thus far that supports the existence of a theistic God, let alone an Abrahamic God, let alone a Christian God. Super-Conclusion: Con hasn't made one point for the existence of an Abrahamic God, let alone a single argument that is more likely true than not.