Dose God Exist

Burden of Proof: Pro undertook to prove that god exists. He issued the challenge, and he argued first: he has the burden of proof. Now he's trying to shrug off that burden by claiming there's no reason to believe either way. If he doesn't have an opinion either way, then why did he start a debate? What if he and his opponent both took the "Duh, I don't know," stance. What kind of a debate would that be? It would be a debate that the first Know-nothing lost, because he argued first and so had the burden of proving the resolution. If you argue first, you have the burden of proof. The only exception is if you make it absolutely explicit in your first post---so you opponent reads it before he accepts the debate---that the burden of proof lies on Secondguy. Otherwise, Firstguy has the burden. One might think that Firstguy doesn't deserve to lose the conduct point, since he was confused, as opposed to trying to cheat. But, he still claims to be confused, even this late in the debate. He has not yet learned this critical matter. If you don't want him to keep starting debates in which neither party thinks he has the burden of proof, then nip this behavior in the bud: Vote conduct for Pro. (That's me, I'm Pro, even though I went second.) Complexity: Some theists use a complexity argument. They say that complexity comes only from greater complexity. This is why, according to them, that man has to have been created by a god. Man is complex. Therefore man came from something even more complex. Therefore god. The Proper atheist response to that argument is to point out that---according to that logic---if god is complex, then he must have been created by an even-more-complex god. The atheist version of the complexity argument is a rebuttal. It won't stand alone. It is entirely ineffectual unless the theists first field their complexity argument. Most theists claim that god is simple, a single unitary uniform unchanging thing with no parts. This makes no sense to me, but that's what they say. So it does Firstguy no good to claim that because god is complex, he is unlikely. In this debate, nobody but Firstguy is claiming that god is complex. Personally, I don't think I'm complex. If it happens that I have the appearance of complexity---which I do not admit---I achieve that appearance by the use of magic. Therefore, to Firstguy's complexity argument, three responses: 1. I deny that god is complex. 2. Firstguy has offered no good reason to think that complex gods are unlikely. He has not done a survey of universes with gods, to see how many spontaniously-occuring gods are complex. Does he think the rest of the universe is simple? Does he think that, in the absence of god, the spontanious occurance of the rest of the universe would be less improbable than the occurance of a god? He hasn't shown his work. He has given us no reason to accept his thesis. And now it's too late. If he finally decides to actually explain how this argument is supposed to work, he'll be doing so in the final round, which is inappropriate. 3. Complex things happen all the time. Naturally, spontaniously, frequently. As far as his complexity argument goes, Firstguy doesn't have a case. Drops: I made eight arguments supporting the existence of god. Firstguy picked one of them, the moral argument, and said that he doesn't find it compelling. He said, "I don't think that is true." The other seven arguments he dropped. He effectively conceded them. Even if I had the burden to prove god exists---which I don't---these seven dropped arguments should suffice to give me the victory. But let's look at that eighth argument anyway: First, I said the moral argument proves that god exists. Then Firstguy said he doesn't think that's true. That's not much of a response, but my moral argument wasn't much of an argument. If I just name an argument without expounding on how it works and why you should believe it, then any demurer suffices as refutation. "I don't think this is true," suffices as a rebuttal. The rebuttal is as strong as the argument, so the argument fails. I'm laboring this point because it applies to his complexity argument. He hasn't explained why he thinks gods are complex, or why he thinks complex gods are improbable. In the absense of an explanation of why we should agree with him, any rebuttal suffices. If "I don't think that is true," suffices as a rebuttal to my moral argument, it should also suffice as a full rebuttal to Firstguy's complexity argument. But my rebuttal of the complexity argument is much better than, "I don't think that's true." Conclusion: Firstguy undertook to prove that god does not exist. His case now hangs on two points: 1. "I don't think that's true." And, 2. It is improbable that god exists because "God is very complex." His case hangs on those two points because he dropped everything else. Those are all that remain. They do not suffice to prove that god does not exist. The first one fails because it leaves seven other arguments for god unopposed, effectively conceded. Plus it doesn't meet the burden of proof. Even if all eight of my arguments had failed, that wouldn't prove that god does not exist. The second one fails because he is not making an argument, but merely naming an argument. He doesn't explain why we should agree. His complexity argument is no better than my morality argument. Any demurer suffices to refute an argument of that quality, and my refutation was far better than a mere demurer. Therefore, Firstguy has not made his case. He hasn't met the burden of proof. He hasn't proven that gods don't exist. Vote Pro. (I'm Pro, even though I'm arguing second.) Note: Please extend my arguments.