is God real

Burden of Proof: We are arguing the "reality" of God. This puts the burden on the person claiming the affirmative. Consider, how could it be demonstrated that dragons are not real? What evidence could be given. About the only evidence that could be given is a prove of impossibility. That is why I presented the problem of evil. It demonstrates the impossibility of the Christian God's existence. Pro did raise some objection to which I will respond. That stated, it should be clear to anyone reading this debate that the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove God is real. Side note: I am baffled that my opponent is aware of what a "prima facie argument" is but has yet to respond directly to contentions that he is begging the question, making bare assertions, provided a self-defeating argument, and committing a special pleading fallacy. Origin of the Universe: Pro claimed last round that if I can't provide an alternate theory to the origin of the universe than I cant refute his claims about God. This is not so, the argument about the universes origin is only relevant to this debate insomuch as my opponent can prove that the universes existence is contingent on a God. He has not done so. He has only presented a self-defeating argument. As in the last round, pro still seems to think I am claiming that complexity implies a creator. This is not what I have argued. That is what he has argued. I demonstrated that such an argument causes his case to be a text book example of begging the question. Consider, he is asking the question why is there something rather than nothing? He than claims to know the answer. .. "God. " To this I am asking why is there God instead of nothing? To this pro has had no response. The response of "God" to the question of why there is something instead of nothing does not provide any kind of explanation. Due to modern cosmology I would argue that such a claim is not necessary. Though as I do not need to go that route I wont waist the time. Rather I have demonstrated that such a response is not sufficient. If pro is going to claim that God can exist eternally but nothing else can, he must provide some argument as to why this is not a special pleading fallacy. He has not done so. He has merely claimed that the universe seems to be running out of energy and that this demonstrates that it is not eternal. It is unclear by his argument why constant energy would be necessary to be eternal. This is the second argument that actually contends against his argument for God. If all energy was "created" at the beginning of the universe, did God exist without energy? If so, why cant the universe? Intelligent Design: Pro did not respond to my contentions here. I extend them. 99.9999% of the universe is uninhabitable. Most life that has managed to exist on this tiny planet in an average solar system in a minor galaxy in the universe has died out. Some designer. .. On a side note, if pro thinks it highly unlikely that the probability is to high. Consider our circumstance is about as rare as it gets in the vast universe. .00001% rare. The Problem of Evil: My opponent only contends premise two as false and explicitly claims the others true. He claims that God can be all good and not desire to eliminate evil. good and evil are antonyms. This means that if pro is correct than his God still does not exist as it would be logically impossible similar to a married bachelor. He claims that without evil we could not have faith in or reliance on a God. I am not sure how this helps his case. Why would a perfect being create us simply to be reliant on him. The very idea reminds me of abusive relationships. Kind of like the husband who does not let his wife work or control the finances just to ensure that she will need him so much as to be unable to leave. Seems like this kind of God would be an abusive prick. Beside this point pro claims this God will destroy evil one day. This undercuts his argument. He is saying God doesn't want to destroy all evil. .. until he does. If evil is necessary now, why is it not necessary later? You will notice that the evil of which I was talking is not even necessary for the purposes that pro claims evil to fulfill. Do the nine million children who die before the age of five every year really need that level of evil to learn to need or love God? What about all of the millions of animals that suffer unnecessarily? It seems to me that pro has not done near enough to discount the problem of evil. Summary: My opponent has admitted in his arguments that "We don't have evidence that he (God) exists. " His argument about the origin of the universe is self-defeating. I have raised issues with the intelligent design argument to which he has not responded. Finally, despite the inability to prove a negative I have gone beyond my burden and provided a prove of impossibility via the problem of evil. Even if those voting do believe there is evidence or good arguments for the "reality" of a God, they have not been presented in this debate.