Natural Selection Disproves Theism

That's because pro has attributed him with the property of being able to actualize any logical fact. In other words, he would have the ability to make square circles exist. This is in contrast to the more common theistic conceptions of omnipotence where God only has the ability to do everything within logic but not the illogical as well (such as making square circles). I however won't contend with the definition as I think natural selection fails to disprove God whichever one we take. Though I have not yet offered my argument, pro has chosen to predict my reasoning and try to refute it himself last round. I think it's important to note, we are taking this particular conception of God as a hypothetical. Pro says that my argument would presuppose God in my proving you can't disprove him, thus resulting in my making a fallacious argument. That however is not the case as my argument forms as a hypothetical. As an atheist, I do not even believe in God. I can talk about what certain conceptions of God could do. It's not the same as saying what a god does or will do. Now, I think pro is taking on a completely futile task. He's trying to refute an irrefutable concept. The way he's defined God, makes that God irrefutable. He's thus defeated himself in his definition. It doesn't matter whether this God exists or not as this is just hypothetical. I could define something as a magical fairy that changes logic every time someone tries to disprove it, resulting in nothing being able to refute it. Even though that being likely does not exist, you cannot prove that it doesn't exist because it, by definition, is irrefutable. In fact I could make up any concept and add in the definition that it is irrefutable, and there is no way to refute it. It's by definition impossible for me to refute irrefutable things. That's not to say there's anything to support the existence of these things. While you cannot disprove God, theists still have the burden of proving his existence, which I personally believe they have always failed to do. I am not defending the existence of God here. The particular attribute that makes the God we are discussing irrefutable is, as stated, that it can actualize any logical fact. Pro's whole argument rests on the joint attribute that God is all good. An all good God would not use the non-good process of natural selection since he's omnipotent and thus doesn't have to. That is the crux of pro's case. However since this God could actualize any facts, you can't disprove him with natural selection or anything. He's necessarily exempt from logical paradoxes or contradictions with his character. Pro finds natural selection contradictory with an all-good infinite intelligence. But as the defined God would be able to make square circles, he could also dispel this contradiction. An absolute omnipotence could change both logic and morality. He by definition is above them. Therefore, whatever makes natural selection bad, God could make good since God is above morality according to pro. So God could remain all good by making the act which he is committing good. If pro were to say that God could not make natural selection good, then he's limiting the God he's already defined as unlimited. He can't have it both ways. Furthermore, this God could dispel the logical contradiction of an all good being doing bad things. In other words, even if God is all good and natural selection is immoral, the only thing preventing the two from not clashing is the logical principle of contradiction. God, by pros definition, is above logic and thus could change the laws of contradiction so that he could be both good while doing bad. SummeryPro has taken on the very futile task of trying to prove the non-existence of a being that is by definition irrefutable. You cannot disprove the God that pro has defined because this God is able to actualize any moral facts as well as logical facts. Whatever moral or logical arguments pro uses to disprove this God thus fail because logic and morality don't bind this God. So pro has defined God as irrefutable then tried to refute him; obviously not something anyone can complete. So just to summarize all pros contentions as I went somewhat out of order, (1) I do believe in natural selection and evolution, so pro has no need to make an argument for it. (2) The nature of natural selection as we perceive it is irrelevant because it's not binding to the God that pro's defined. (3) This type of theism is not contradictory because contradictions cannot apply to the God pro has defined, whether they be moral or logical. I'll hand it back to pro now.