The Abrahamic God is supported by Scientific Proof

In this round, I will present rebuttals, conclude and present voting issues.5R1RC: The Concept of Scientific Evidence: The opponent is literally arguing not against the resolution, but against scientific evidence. The motion of this debate asks, and the opponent has not fulfilled his BoP. He has yet to provide any scientific proof as defined by the definitions he was given during the first negative round, in which he gradually accepts. Apart from this, the existence of God is not a philosophical issue, whilst the nature of his existence may be. The existence of God, in our case, is a scientific issue; if he is proven to exist via science, then philosophical question of the nature of His existence can later be defined. The opponent states that there is no direct scientific proof of God. He has just negated his own Burden of Proof. The opponent also states that “if the Bible is accurate supernaturally, then we can infer that God exists” Even if the Bible was accurate supernaturally, we can still only infer that God exists? We live in the natural world, a world in which reality rules. If we can infer that God exists in the supernatural, in means that we can only imagine that God exists in the natural world. On the analogy of dark matter and gravity, dark matter is confirmed by something that exists in the natural world. No one doubts the existence of gravity; many doubt the existence of the soul, the supernatural etc. Therefore, we can only make inferences and observations, but cannot come with any solid information until facts are confirmed, throughout the scientific community, of the existence of God. 5R2RC: Noah’s Flood and Straw Man Wikipedia states that: The Genesis flood narrative is one of several similar flood myths. The earliest known written flood myth is the Sumerian flood myth found in the Epic of Ziusudra. Later and very similar Mesopotamian flood stories appear in the Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh texts. Many scholars believe that Noah and the Biblical flood-story derive from the Mesopotamian versions, predominantly because Biblical mythology that is today found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mandeanism shares overlapping consistency with far older written Mesopotamian stories of the Great Flood, and because the early Hebrews were known to have lived in Mesopotamia, particularly during the Babylonian captivity. The opponent seems to present us a straw man biased presentation of the actual Wikipedia information. A straw man is a set of misrepresented information that is presented to either confirm the hypothesis when it, in reality, does not. It is also a logical fallacy. The Wikipedia excerpt states that many similarities can be seen between Ancient Sumerian Flood Myths and the Genesis Flood Account. But at no point that the Wikipedia article state that Noah’s Flood was a local Mesopotamian flood. In fact, the Gilgamesh Flood Myth described a worldwide flood, in which “water swept foreign lands” The opponent’s information has been found to be invalid and highly straw-man like. Apart from this, the Grand Canyon absence explanation still needs to be justified; we cannot simply believe that so much water could be drained in so little time without a natural structure similar to the Grand Canyon. 5R3RC: Evidence. https://www.metabunk.org...This adequately describes all my points in this rebuttal. Case B: Dog and DMT This is Agent Detection in action right here; the opponent defends the saying that the spirit of my ghost dog is present, rather than going with an alternative scientifically valid explanation. It would be rational for humans to accept a generally scientific explanation about a supernatural entity rather than a non-scientific explanation of it. Again, science is limitless in proving things, and we are to accept it, not deny it and go for philosophy, as science is the existence and philosophy is the nature of existence. This debate asks for scientific proof; the opponent has failed to provide any. 5R3RC: Agent Detection The opponent simply states that because it can be applied to other things doesn’t mean it applies to the Abrahamic God, which is a faulty assumption. Just because I could eat in many other ways (like with my hands) doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t eat with a spoon. The opponent states that there is no evidence for the Abrahamic God, or at least direct evidence. Then the concept that humans are intuitive and will assume the supernatural is always present in the human mind; the opponent denies this, but does it himself. We need no further proof of that theory. With this concluding my rebuttal, I would like to sum up my numerous scientific evidence(s) against the existence of the Abrahamic God. Argument Umbrella One: Dualism P1. The understanding of the body could lead to the understanding of the mind P2. The mind has to be part of the body for this to happen C1. The Body is united with the mind P1. All decisions are validated and enacted by neurons in our bodies P2. If the mind is a separate entity from the bodies, then these neurons do not move P4. These neurons do move C1. The mind and the body are united Argument Umbrella Two: The Bible P1. Noah’s Ark was built by sheep herders with no skills in boat building P2. No proof of Noah’s Ark has ever been discovered C1. Noah’s Ark is invalid and irrational Argument Umbrella Three: Psychology and Agent Detection P1. All human minds have developed special properties over time P2. These special properties give supernatural beliefs, like God and the Spaghetti Monster, a place C. God is developed by the human mind and only exists in the human mind P1. All human minds were designed to find design into chaos in order to impose a myth upon reality P2. There is a plethora of evidence that God is a made up story to impose design on the random C. Humans created God as a myth on reality Argument Umbrella Four: Spontaneous Generation P1. Spontaneous Generation is impossible due to the natural laws that we have emplaced on our Earth P2. God has allegedly created humans via spontaneous generation. P3. If the creation of humans under God goes to an obsolete theory, then God never created humans C. If God never created humans, then it is quite possible for God to not exist C2. If God never created humans, then it is impossible for the Abrahamic God to exist In this debate, I will be providing voting issues from my perspective. BoP: We ask for scientific evidence, yet the opponent has yet to provide us with any. Historical accuracy is not scientific evidence, and therefore, cannot be used and called scientific evidence; personal experiences can also be dismissed. Apart from that, the BoP lies on him, yet I have presented more arguments than him. Fallacies: The opponent has made hypocritical ad hominem attacks on me and has falsely claimed me of committing some. Yet many of the government’s assumptions were highly fallacious, and I have only stated some of the fallacies committed. Ignored Arguments The opponent has ignored many of my arguments, many times unjustifiably. I admit that I have ignored some evidence he presented, because they weren’t scientific to the definition; however, the opponent has ignored my arguments on spontaneous generation and on the physics of it, instead turning this debate into a quasi-theology debate. Vote meh.