The Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist.

Pro is tasked to prove that the Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist. I am tasked to prove that the resolution is false. RebuttalsStupid DesignThe resolution is a claim to an objective truth. Pro doesn't think it is too much to say that, "Objectively, a being which is not adept at surviving in its environment would not be well designed. " This is ipse dixit, for he does not substantiate his claim that humans' adeptness at surviving the environment is objectively true. If it is not supported, then this is nothing more than Pro's opinion. Pro wants to objectively prove the Abrahamic God almost certainly doesn't exist because in his personal assessment, humans are stupidly designed. Impossible by His Own NaturePro appears to be accusing me of not using reason after he just tried to convince the readers that his opinion about the design of the universe proves God almost certainly doesn't exist. I think this speaks for itself. OmnibenevolencePro openly admits that he is appealing to his own sense of morality when condemning the Abrahamic God's actions. Once again, Pro is using his opinion to prove that the Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist. I'm not invoking God when I appeal to an objective morality. I'm pointing to the fact that Pro needs objective morality to make this argument relevant but he cannot account for it without the existence of God. OmnisciencePro uses poor hermeneutics to show God as being inconsistent. This is an error of exegesis on Pro's part, not a logical contradiction. God can be omniscient and still test his followers. There is no evidence, even in the conversation between God and Job, that God was mistaken or lacked knowledge. It is Pro's needless hyper-literal translation making this claim. OmnipotencePro offers only rhetoric and no rebuttal here. He rants about God being a tyrant without refuting my case that the problem of evil is not a logical problem. Epistemology and SciencePro confesses that he is using the scientific worldview, also known as scientism1. It asserts that science, and only science, can bring objective truth. This is a self-refuting philosophy, for science cannot prove that only science can bring objective truth. This only strengthens my previous rebuttals to this point, namely that Pro is erroneous is presuming that God must be proven in the same way that science proves the existence of, say, electrons. Pro asks, "How can it be that I believe in logic and science and moral standards but not God? " I never said Pro doesn't believe in these things. I said Pro is taking these thing for granted despite the fact that his worldview cannot account for them, regardless if that worldview is scientism or atheism. Defense of TAGPro argues that Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and another religion account for logic, science, and morality. First of all, he doesn't say how. This is begging the question! I have repeatedly asked Pro to account for these things, and his response is akin to saying, "I don't have to provide an atheistic account, nor do I want to. In fact, I'll just drop a bunch of religions on the table and call it a day. " This is not a refutation, it is a red herring. He is dodging the very philosophical questions being asked of him. Pro did appeal to scientism, rather than atheism, as a worldview. I already showed the scientism is self-refuting, so there is no need to belabor the point. I will note however, that scientism is just a form of atheism, as it presupposes only natural explanations, not supernatural ones. Thus, it suffers the same failings as the atheistic worldview. ConclusionPro started this debate and we both accepted the burden of proof. He is tasked with proving that the Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist. He has given us opinions about Christian theology and lots of rhetoric about how much he despises the notion of God, but he has not offered one single argument that could withstand logical scrutiny. He claims I created a straw man resolution by asserting that TAG only argues for a deistic God. Has he not being actually reading the argument? It argues that the Christian worldview—which most certainly presupposes the Abrahamic God—accounts for the necessary preconditions for logic, science, and morality. So, this accusation falls flat on its face. Indeed, Pro hasn't addressed TAG at all head on. I asked him in every round to account for logical laws, the uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes. He never did this, opting instead to just treat the request as ridiculous or to offer anecdotes in place of actual philosophical justifications. He then has the gall to claim that if I make one single assertion against the resolution that I've committed some kind of misconduct. Worse, he says he would have won the debate outright! Indeed, it is against debate etiquette to introduce new arguments in the final round, but I have not done that. I have, however, offered new rebuttals in the final round, which I believe I am permitted to do. I think perhaps the conduct vote, in this case, is more likely to swing in my direction. In summary, Pro has been begging the questions throughout the debate. He begs readers to accept only scientific/evidential arguments for God and not philosophical ones. He begs the readers to just accept logic as necessarily self-existing without answering the questions TAG set forth. He begs the readers to accept the principle of induction. He begs the readers to accept his moral opinions and his opinions about the design of humans and the universe as proof that the Abrahamic God certainly does not exist. When weighing both sides, it seems reasonable to conclude that the resolution is negated. Sources . http://en.wikipedia.org...