Occam's Razor Applies To The Theory of God!

Con has pretty much ignored every argument I made in the last round. He continues to assert that Occam's razor does not apply to everything while failing to respond to any of my arguments showing otherwise. He also failed to respond to any of my arguments as to why the claim that God exits is necessarily pure speculation, and instead goes on to claim that I failed to uphold my burden because I have failed to show that God claims are pure speculation. The role of the Con position is to refute claims, not declare them false. Definition Con has again posted the definition of OR, although this time worded slightly different: Occam's Razor states that if there are two competing theories, which are equally valid, then we may consider the superiority of that theory which uses fewer postulates, assumptions or hypotheses First of all I think it is important to note that the number of competing theories is absolutely irrelevant. In order to compare two claims you have to be able to evaluate them first. OR refers to the method from which you do that. Think of judges evaluating a figure skaters performance. It makes no difference how many competitors there are, the comparison occurs after they are evaluated individually. This is important because the method of OR is what must be understood before any assertion can be made as to whether this method applies to the theory of God. In the last round I argued that OR applies to everything because it is a description of how we reason in this context. I showed that everything at some level is an assumption (like the ball flying through the window) and I demonstrated how we change our positions with the addition of new information, as in the scenario of the jack offer admitting to placing the ball in the seat and how that affects our viewpoint on the ball through the window theory. Still waiting on Cons response. Pure Speculation? Despite my unresponded to arguments to the contrary, Con still claims that OR only applies to claims that are pure speculation yet the only support for this assertion I can find in this entire debate came in the last round in where he stated "It applies to theories which are based on 'hypotheses' or 'postulates' which are speculative". Yes, hypothesis or postulates (assumptions) are speculative. But as Con's definition affirms, OR evaluates which theory uses fewer hypothesis or postulates. That is the exact opposite of Cons assertion. If the likelihood of a theory is decided by which one uses less assumptions, then the likelihood is determined by which theory is least speculative. That is the entire point of OR. How Con goes from that to OR only applying to theories that are pure speculation is beyond me and has not been supported otherwise in this debate. Speculation of God Not really not much to say here since Con did not respond to my arguments for how the theory of God is necessarily speculative. Con states in the last round that the voters should ignore any arguments I make from here. That's fine, you can find those arguments in round 2 in the section titled "Applying Occam's Razor to God". Not that it matters anyway, since Con has failed to show how this idea of pure speculation has any relevance. Other Rebuttals Con states that I have to prove that either all the proofs for God are speculative (which I already did in R2), or that I must show that the proofs against God use fewer assumptions than those for God. The latter is complete nonsense. My burden is not to show that proofs against God use fewer assumptions, it is to show that OR applies to the theory of God. Con has shown that it does with his very statement. Comparing the arguments on both sides and determining which one uses fewer assumptions is OR, and in Con's own example is being applied to God. That alone affirms the resolution. Con states that I should enunciate further on my argument that the universe came from nothing, and show how it uses less assumptions then the theory of God. First of all doing so would allow us to use OR to evaluate them, the very thing Con is claiming we cannot do. But besides that I have no reason to do so because I once again have no burden of proving that the universe came from nothing. That is an entirely different topic. The arguments were made as a demonstration of how to apply OR to the arguments for and against God. The very fact that we are comparing which argument uses fewer assumptions again affirms the resolution. Conclusion The resolution states that Occam's Razor applies to the theory of God. It was my burden to prove this and I have done so in many ways, most clearly perhaps by Cons own assertion that I must argue against God by showing that "the proofs against God use fewer assumptions than those for God". The very notion of doing so as a means of arguing against God demonstrates that Occam's Razor applies to God. That was the point of this debate. I'd like to thank Con for the challenge, and wish him the best of luck. Thanks as well to the readers for listening.