The Proof that God exists IS Mans unique existence.

It gets worse. The response is even more chaotic and more ragged from Pro. He has failed to create an argument worth refuting, there is little more for me to rebut in this round. The reason Pro does not think I am addressing his arguments, is because I don't think he understands that I am pointing out that his statements do not count as argument to rebut in the first place. They do not get past first base, they do not get off the starting blocks, given the logical fallacies he uses to bootstrap them. Add to that, there are perfectly adequate natural explanations of the facts of nature (including human anatomy, skills, abilities etc) and Pro is in no man's land. I think Pro imagines I want to debate why humans can do poetry and Urangutans cannot, and if I cannot provide a reason that must prove the Christian God is real then! Er no. .. no more than a spider spinning silk 5x stronger than steel proves the existence of the Great Goddess of Teotihuacan. If I were to present that argument to Pro would want a little more structure than that. He would not accept "hey you cannot name a single creature that can even come close to that! " The question here Pro is not "isn't it incredible that a spider can do that, must be that there is a spider goddess", but instead "why is there an objective reason to think the strength of spider silk is an important marker for supernatural intervention from goddesses". The same is true of your statements about human speech, bipedalism, intellect or whatever thing you want to dream up. I will start at the end of Pros rebuttal. Pro says: "lets try and stay on subject, please! ". Interesting admonishment! He has started a debate "The Proof that God exists IS Mans unique existence" and whereas I addressed his argument head on and pointed out its flaws Pro has instead introduced several new debates just within his first rebuttal: -Big-bang cosmology -Abiogenesis (an interesting interpretation of it) -The doctrine of Hell (for what the Christian assumes exists ie souls) -An argument ad populum for the truth of Christianity based on numbers of followers -An argument from personal experience (God exists, because I have experienced something specific to me) Happy to debate these and why they make atheism more likely (and a lot more likely) than theism, but none of them are the subject of this debate. So the complaint by Pro that I have edged away from the topic is a mirror image of his own enterprise. Pro is infact complaining about his own argumentation (as can be seen above). Looking to divert attention away from the debate he started and projecting that back onto me. Presumably he is doing this because he knows his arguments are already shot. So let's get back to the subject. I challenged Pro to better structure his argument and provide a proper grounding, other than the wish thinking we have seen so far. Specifically: 1) to give me a reason as to why the differences between humans (homo sapiens) and other animals are objectively the ones we should focus on. No response from Pro. 2) to stop begging the question and assuming the conclusion. Pro continues to beg the question, as he says for example "he (meaning Con) produced not a single creature, capable of equal footing or ability as man". It is a pity Pro cannot see the circularity of his argument, and merely wants to place a burden of proof on me as to why I cannot respond to his arbitrary standard. 3) Provide a framework as to why differences can only be of supernatural origin. Total silence from Pro, no reason to believe a supernatural intervention was required. I am a little concerned by the utter confusion and horrible cartooning of science and scientific theories by Pro. Again this is not the topic of this debate, but I think that he regards the tentative conclusions of science and the refinement of theoretical frameworks as some kind of black mark against science, instead of its strength. The weakness of believing in revealed truth is its inability to adapt to new findings, which is why creationists make the terrible arguments they do. We are entitled to believe some things axiomatically of course, but YAHWEH is not one of them. He then portrays some kind of (frankly weird) interpretation of Abiogensis. Pro asks: "So your telling me THAT: This planet formed millions upon millions of newborn, creatures, without a single adult creature in the entirety of the planet to feed, water or protect them, and survived to adulthood? ". This is just an embarrassing strawman of Abiogenesis, totally misunderstanding the hypothesis, but a great example of the incredulity throughout Pros argument. I am presumably meant to say "Gee-whizz you're right how can that happen, must be the story of Adam and Eve was true all along then! " This argument advances the debate he started not one iota. But I am not minded to refute it given it is unrelated to the topic of this debate and yet another red herring by Pro. Pro also accuses me a bare assertion. I quote from his rebuttal "He makes a bare assertion that Man IS the sum of all knowledge". I can only ask him to point out where I said then in my opening statement. I do not believe I have said anything of the sort. So I would like to end with Pro's beginning. Pro It may have escaped your notice but atheists tend not to believe they either have a soul, nor that there is therefore one to endanger. Thus threatening me with high stakes game of eternal punishment is slightly amusing, slightly presumptive, slightly boring, slightly predictable and slightly rude, but ultimately uninteresting and irrelevant. Also continually quoting bible passages at me is dangerously close to proselytisation and not debate. This is a debate and not about the subject of biblical passages. So I would politely ask that you refrain from quoting the bible at me. I am not seeking a conversion from you. I am not looking to convert you by advising you that you are wasting your life on a lie. I find the history, motivation and intentions behind the writing of the bible much more interesting than its actual stories themselves. It does feel like those who interpret those stories literally, miss the irony, beauty and pathos of the bible, it is a fascinating topic. So Pro asked me a direct question "Now I ask you ". WHO is being naive here? ". The answer is Pro. Naive arguments from incredulity, naive strawman arguments, naive question begging, naive understanding of science and the scientific method, naive metaphysics, naive understanding of biblical literature" and so on. So for the second time I ask that you provide an objective analysis of your assertions, to stop question begging and provide support that it necessarily from your assertions that this proves there is a supernatural dimension to humanity. Thank you for your time and consideration.