On balance, theism is more plausible than naturalism.

My opponent states that, "I'll begin by noting that Con has not made any arguments either for naturalism or against theism. " The onus is not upon me to do so, the resolution is "On balance, theism is more plausible than naturalism. " My opponent as instigator bears the burden of proof, the onus is on him to establish that theism has greater plausibility than naturalism. By refuting all his arguments thus far for theism I have prevented him from making a sufficient case to affirm his resolution and therefore have done my job. It is far too late for Pro to re-write the debate, and I hope that the voters see through this weak tactic. The Cosmological Argument. My opponent has done nothing to address my counterargument from the previous round. In the absence of any such effort the cosmological argument is refuted. The Teleological Argument My opponent states that, "my opponent's caricature of my argument is indeed invalid. Con raises six objections to this strawman. " Yet provides no evidence as to how I have caricatured or strawmanned. I challenge my opponent to substantiate this charge or withdraw it. In any case this charge is self-refuting as my opponent appears to recognise my arguments as relevant and attempts to address them. "Con claims that there may not be any potential variation in the values of the physical constants of the universe. He has not sourced this claim or bothered to explain it in any kind of depth. " It does not need to be sourced, or even explained in depth. It is simple point of logic. My opponents argument is an argument based on ignorance. He argues that the universe appears to be unlikely as a naturally occuring event, without any quantifiable knowledge of the facts involved. It is not known if the universal values, are fixed, or variables. My opponents demands I argue from authority however, so I will turn to Dawkins who appears to address and refute every single argument my opponent employs. "Martin Rees, in 'just six numbers', lists six fundemental constants, which are believed to hold all around the universe. Each of these numbers is finely tuned in the sense that if it were different, the universe would be comphrehensively different and presumably unfriendly to life". P170, the God Delusion. Dawkins is not obviously being literal in his use of the term 'finely tuned. He later states, "Hard-nosed physicists say that the six knobs were never free to vary in the first place. .. The six numbers may turn out to be no freer to vary than is the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter. .. Far from God being needed to twiddle six knobs, there are no knobs to twiddle. " P173, the God Delusion Note that Dawkins does not state this to be a fact, he does not even state it is a theory that he supports. It is a simply a thought experiment that reveals my opponents position to be an argument from ignorance and akin to a God of the gaps. My opponent states that, "Alternatively, he suggests a multiverse could account for fine-tuning. However, this leaves the naturalist no better off. In the most popular inflationary model, the "universe generator," so to speak, would itself need to be fine tuned. " This is superflous, my opponent needs to establish that the issue of fine tuning is a problem. As shown in objection 1, it is not. It is also an argument from ignorance, my opponent can only offer theories and models, not facts, which are required by the burden of proof. My opponent further states that, " He objects that the intricate design of a snowflake does not prima facie point to a divine creator. However, I pre-empted this objection by formulating my Bayesian inference within the framework of the existence of intelligent life; "embodied moral agents of the sort that can form meaningful relationships with each other and potentially with God. " This specific type of design is strong evidence for theism. " Though an interesting argument it at best suggests that theism is worthy theory on a par with naturalism, not that it supercedes it. Again he is hoist by the petard of the burden of proof. My opponent states that, "Finally, Con cites Dawkin's "Ultimate 747 Gambit," arguing that the teleological argument would have to apply to the creator as well. This is really a silly objection that is wrong on two distinct fronts. If God exists, He must be, by definition, a necessary being. " This is pure semantics, one can simply side step logic by renaming a tricky step. This has essentially already been addressed and blatantly ignored. My opponent references Richard Swinburne's argument or rather statement that God is a simple being. Whilst Dawkins argument with regards a complex creator is one of logic, Swinburne's position is simply a statement. He can offer no argument, logically or evidentially for it, it is not accepted by all theologians. Conveniently however Dawkins address this very fellow and this very argument, and indeed cites another theologian. "It is quite coherent, however, to suppose that God, while indivisable, is internally complex. " Keith Ward former Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford. P179. My opponent argues "Alvin Plantinga writes "suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover machine-like objects that look and work just like tractors; our leader says 'there must be intelligent beings on this planet who built those tractors. ' A first-year philosophy student on our expedition objects: 'Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are. ' No doubt we'd tell him that a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two. " A very clever point, very well explained. But as my opponent knows this does not save him as the example is incorrecly applied. The tractors have been created, the intelligent beings who created them have evolved. Variations exist on this of course, the alien designers could have been designed themselves, by a race that were themselves designed by a race that evolved. The tractors may be self-replicating robots that in a sense have evolved from their orginal creations. Unless my opponent can establish that any of the parties involved are of permanent existence, uncreated, unevolved and without causation he can not rely upon this as an argument. The Historical Jesus My opponent has either misunderstood or intentionally distorted my argument here. I am not claiming that the existence of Jesus proves that there is a God; I've built a cumulative case based on five historical facts (the crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, appearances made by the risen Christ, and the sincere belief of the apostles) for the resurrection, which strongly implies that there is a God. My opponent has entirely ignored my R1 argument and has again claimed misrepresentation. This is a another issue I expect he will resolve in the next round. In any case I will try again, my opponent has not established the crucifixtion, the burial, the empty tomb, the postumous manifestations, sincere belief of the apostles, as historcal facts. He can quote but one primary source (or a rather a collection of related primary sources) uncorroboratied by additional documents, or archeology. Biblical scholars accept that the gospels were written, years, even decades after the events they purport to portray. It is infinitely more likely that, 1: Jesus did not exist, being simply part of existing folklore (which his story almost certainly was) and/or and amalgam of several revolutionary leaders. 2: That he survived the crucifixtion. 3: That the story is fabricated.