On balance, theism is more plausible than naturalism.

Argument 1: The Cosmological argument My opponent presents the following argument. "(1) Every contingent fact has an explanation. (2) There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts. (3) Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact. (4) This explanation must involve a necessary being. (5) This necessary being is God. " I will not challenge premises 1-3, however Premise 4, and therefore by extension premise 5 are however logically flawed. My opponent states, "Step 4, the explanation for this fact must be a necessary fact. A conjunction of all contingent facts can't be explained by another contingent fact because this explanans would be a conjunct of the explanandum, resulting in the conjuncton explaining itself, which is logically impossible. Moreover, conceptual explanations are causally impotent, while scientific explanations invoking the laws of nature again fall under the explanandum. The explanation must be either a necessarily occurring event or a necessarily existing substance; but there are no events that occur without substances; events happen to substances, so we are committed to the existence of both. " This is essentially the regress problem, my opponent concludes it by stating, "The only type of cause we know of that fits these criteria is that of a volitional agent. " This however is not a logical conclusion, a volitional agent is merely another contingent fact, the product of existing contingent facts. The claim is self-refuting. For my opponents argument to work he must demonstrate some evidence or argument for an entity that exists independent of any causal chain of creation. "Step 5, Et hoc omnes intelligunt Deum (and this everyone understands to be God). " This amounts to nothing more philosophically valid than a "God of the Gaps". My opponent simply seeks to explain away philosophical problems by assigning them to God. It is equally valid as renaming Dark Matter or a Quantum paradox as God. The cosmological argument is therefore refuted. Argument 2: Teleological argument To part summarise and paraphrase my opponents argument "1: The physical constants of the universe must fall within extremely precise ranges in order to permit life. 2: The odds of this occurring are astronomical, absurdly so. 3: It is therefore far more likely that the a life sustaining universe is the product of design, as opposed to impersonal process. " Such an argument however has long been debunked. 1: It is not currently known if there exists any potential variation in these basic properties of the universe. It may be that the physical laws of this universe are fixed by the pre-existing nature of reality, and that convenient they create a universe in which life may form. 2: It is not known, (but does admittedly appear unlikely) that if the universe could take an alternate form that life could not form within it. 3: Probability arguments, such as this one, are only valid if it is known how many times you are allowed to roll the die. My opponent may posit astronomically obscene odds for the birth of the universe with the properties it currently has. Without knowing how many big bangs have occurred in this region that we call our universe, without knowing how many universes there are, no such probability argument can exist. If there are infinite number of universes then if my opponents concedes any probability of a universe such as this one occurring then there exists no reason to posit God. By the same token the odds against both myself and my opponent existing, and the odds of us finding each other on a debate site are astronomically high. Yet there is no pressing case to explain away these odds with recourse to God. An additional example is to consider a river, and the vast improbability (as in extremely low probability) of the many millions of atoms and sub-atomic being in the positions that they occupy at any given second. It is however nonsense to suppose on this statistical basis that the river does not exist. 4: Complexity does not imply design. Living organisms are incredibly complex but are the product of evolution. Snowflakes are incredibly complex but are simply the result of natural process. One could claim that each snowflake is directly crafted by divine intervention, but to do so is a cumbersome, elaborate and unnecessary act. 5: Proof of design is not proof of God. If I concede to my opponent that the universal variables were set by an intelligence, my opponent must still establish the case that this intelligence is possessed of the qualities of God, omniscience, omnipotence, and of infinite existence. It would be far more probable for such a designer to simply be very advanced. Or in the words of Voltaire, “. .. from this sole argument I cannot conclude anything further than that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has skillfully prepared and fashioned the matter. I cannot conclude from that alone that this being has made matter out of nothing and that he is infinite in every sense”. 6: Richard Dawkins argues that the teological argument should apply to the designer, thus creating a paradox, or an infinite regress of designers (which is arguably it of itself a paradox). The teological argument is therefore refuted. Argument 3: The Historical Jesus Even if I am to concede the existence of a historical Jesus as evidence by the bible, this is not sufficient to establish my opponents case. Christianity requires that Jesus did not merely exist but was a supernatural agent of God, or even God himself. The bible, beyond stating this to be the case does not supply any evidence to this effect beyond stating it to be so. Incidentally this is only an argument for Christianity. "In order to account for these facts, yet avoid the conclusion that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, secularists have had to turn to unfounded and often bizarre alternatives, like the swoon hypothesis, or that the disciples stole the body from the tomb. Most of these theories fail to account for certain relevant factors and have thus been rejected by the vast majority of New Testament scholars, however, I'll wait for my opponent to outline his own view before I criticize any of these ideas in depth. " All these claims are however far more likely, and far more probable than the assumption that the Christian God exists. The argument from the historical Jesus is therefore refuted. My opponent states, "In the absence of defeaters, Christian belief enjoys warrant. In order to win this point, my opponent will have to provide an alternative, superior theory of epistemic justification. " Actually as the burden of proof falls upon my opponent to make the case that “theism is more plausible than naturalism”. As I have refuted all three of his arguments I shall await for more.