THBT: The God of the Christian bible likely does not exist.

• When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.
  

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, 
   
2. The universe began to exist
   
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
   

• The Oxford languages dictionary defines causation as that which relates to cause and effect. Where an event involves a cause and results in an effect, causation is associated. By virtue of truism, without a cause preceding an effect, causality must be absent. Moreover, the time between any cause and effect must be a finite and measurable number. Hence, it can be drawn that causality is inherently tied with the arrow of time, as the cause would have to precede the effect by a finite amount of time [2]. 
  
• Moreover, the nature of causation requires that cause “X” and effect “Y” both be logically possible, either contingently or necessarily [3]. For example, it is impossible that there exists a cause of which results in the effect of a circular square. Hence, it is necessary that the coherence of causality lies in logical, physical and metaphysical laws/axioms. 
  
• Therefore, the nature of causation is inherently incumbent on logical, physical and metaphysical laws/axioms. If something is incoherent or breaks the laws of logic (circular square), it cannot be caused. Thus, the idea of a caused universe is ultimately illogical, as prior to the origin of the universe, there were neither time’s arrow nor physical/logical laws. As the necessary conditions for causation to take place did not exist prior to the Big Bang, it is unjustified to speak of causation as the cause of said effect.
  
• As the A-series of times affirms the proposition of a caused universe, and the conditions of a caused universe are wholly illogical, the A-series of time is inaccurate. 
  

1. General Relativity depicts a universe where time is an axis in a 4-dimensional, block universe. 
   
2. Special relativity holds true that the laws of physics are the same, regardless of the frame of reference. This means that people can disagree on the present moment but are all equally correct. 
   

• Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity depicts a universe where time itself is an axis in a 4 dimensional, spatial plane. The theory provides an infused description of gravity and space-time and shows that space-time can be curved and distorted by objects with a large mass. Gravity, caused by large objects warping the fabric of spacetime, affects not only the movement of an object through space, but also the object's passage through time.
  
• Consider the words of Marina Cortês, a cosmologist from the Royal Observatory of Edinburgh.
  

• Essentially, special relativity demonstrates that observers separated in space have different perceptions of when “X” event occurs. This finding suggests that there is no such thing as an objective present, as beings can experience event “X” at different times. 
  
• Hence, this refutes the A-Theory of time, as it demonstrates that there is no “real present” as a single event can be perceived differently, with no appropriate metric to determine who’s “perception” is right. 
  

• As has been observed in the quantum world, “backwards causation” [8] can be achieved by linking time-symmetry and retrocausality. Retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, an effect can change the cause. Scientific research provides an abundance of facts which provides support for retrocausal quantum theories, in which the future influences the past. Huw Price, a major proponent of retrocausality in quantum theory laws out an argument which suggests that any quantum theory that assumes that 
  

1. the quantum state is real, and 
   
2. the quantum world is time-symmetric (that physical processes can run forwards and backwards while being described by the same physical laws) [9] 
   

• must allow for retrocausal influences. Moreover, experiments such as the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser designed by Yoon-Ho Kim aim to prove the existence of backwards causation. The said experiment is a rather complicated construction. It is set up to measure correlated pairs of photons, which are in an entangled state, so that one of the two photons is detected 8 nanoseconds before its partner. The result indicates that the behaviour of the photons detected 8 nanoseconds before their partners is determined by how the partners will be detected. [10] Undeniably, this should act as proof of backwards causation, in that the effect has affected the cause. 
  
• Moreover, quantum entanglement further affirms this point, and shows that when a particle is observed and its wave function collapses, the entangled particles interact with each other retrocausally. [9] 
  
• Furthermore, revisitation of the famous Bell Theorem, which was once under great scrutiny finds that the quantum non-locality observed in nature in the form of statistical correlations violating Bell’s inequality can be understood as the signature of retrocausal effects. [11] 
  
• These such findings are incongruent with the A-series of times, as the A-series is reliant on the axiom that the cause comes before the effect. As the studies I have provided prove that this axiom is false, it is conclusive that the block universe theory is not only harmonious with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity but also makes sense of theories which would be deemed utterly absurd under the A-Theory of time.
  

• Premise one is valid via truism, which makes the real debate revolve around premise 2. With the excessive evidence that I have provided, the  A-Theory of time can almost certainly be rendered false, hence the claim that the universe was caused is almost certainly false. 
  

• P1: P --> Q
  
• P2: ¬Q
  
• C: ∴ ¬P
  
• C from P1 and P2, Modus Tollens.
  

1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
   
2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
   
3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
   
4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
   
5. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
   
6. God exists in the mind as an idea.
   
7. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
   

• Though convincing at first, this argument is riddled with flaws. Consider the following counter argument used to deny the existence of God. 
  

• Its intrinsic quality and 
  
• The ability of its creator 
  

• The Occam's Razor, also known as the law of parsimony states that “plurality should not be posited without necessity”. The principle deems a theory most likely if it has the least ontological commitments when compared with other theories. The principle can also be expressed as “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity” [12]. Thus, my application of Occam's Razor can be framed by theism versus metaphysical naturalism [13]. Whilst Metaphysical naturalism has only two ontological commitments (the physical universe and the laws that govern it), Theism has three commitments (the physical universe, the laws that govern it and a divine being). 
  
• Hence, the theory of which God is not necessary is, according to the law of parsimony, more likely.
  

• The term “Ultimate Boeing 747” is derived from Fred Hoyle’s amusing photograph of the Boeing 747 and the scrapyard. Hoye asserted that the probability of abiogenesis occurring on earth is no greater than the chance of a hurricane sweeping through a scrapyard and assembling a Boeing 747. In a nutshell, this epitomises creationists' favourite argument - an argument that can only be made by one with limited knowledge of natural selection. Consider the true implications of the improbability argument. 
  

1. He created all the natural, complex phenomena in the universe
   
2. He has no explanation for himself
   

1. He is at least as complex as the natural, complex phenomena in the universe 
   
2. He has no explanation for himself 
   

1. Is at least as complex as the natural, complex phenomena in the universe, 
   
2. Has no explanation for its existence
   

• Disease
  
• Animals in the wild suffer from diseases which circulate in a similar manner to human colds and flus, such as epizootic's, which are analogous to human epidemics. Some well-studied examples include chronic wasting disease in elk and deer, white-nose syndrome in bats, devil facial tumour disease in Tasmanian devils and Newcastle disease in birds. Diseases, combined with parasitism, "may induce listlessness, shivering, ulcers, pneumonia, starvation, violent behaviour, or other gruesome symptoms over the course of days or weeks leading up to death."
  
• Injury
  
• Consider interspecific competitions; a natural interaction in population ecology whereby members of the same species fight to the death for limited resources. These interactions often lead to fractures, eye injuries, wing tears and self-amputations, all extremely painful injuries which further lead to behaviours which negatively affect the well-being of the injured animals. 
  
• Parasitism 
  
• Parasites can negatively affect the well-being of their hosts by redirecting their host's resources to themselves, destroying their host's tissue and increasing their host's susceptibility to predation. As a result, parasites may reduce the movement, reproduction and survival of their hosts. Parasites can alter the phenotype of their hosts; limb malformations in amphibians caused by ribeiroia ondatrae, is one example. Some parasites have the capacity to manipulate the cognitive function of their hosts, such as worms which make crickets kill themselves by directing them to drown themselves in water, so that the parasite can reproduce in an aquatic environment, as well as caterpillars using dopamine containing secretions to manipulating ants to acts as bodyguards to protect the caterpillar from parasites.
  
• It is apparent that one fact is clear. Animals are often born into worlds in which suffering from factors outside of their control is a part of life. Why is this the case? If an all loving God really existed, why did he allow animals to be born into this cycle of violence and torment. Why do animals get their tongues ripped off by parasites? Why do cows get born and bred with the sole purpose of eventual execution? Why did God create a system in which animals live fearful lives, with the possibility of an excruciating death? The number of vertebrates alone is thought to be somewhere around 10^11 and 10^14, digits which are well into the trillions. Each and every one of these animals will, under the unairing supervision of an all loving God, likely suffer from more fear, devastation and trauma than humans can even begin to imagine. 
  
• Theists may recognise that this argument is similar to that of the “problem of evil”, however I personally regard this variant to be far superior. The following objections which are often used to reply to the “problem of evil”
  

1. Humans suffer as a result of free will 
   
2. Humans will be compensated in the after life 
   
3. Suffering exists because from it, more good can immerge 
   

• do not sufficiently reply to the problem of animal suffering. To number 1, free will does not reply to why wild bush fires set alight koalas, causing them undeniable agony. Nothing within the koala's ability allows it to escape such an event. To number 2, unless Christians believe in some sort of animal heaven, this point is void. To advocates of rebuttal 3, I challenge them to name a single benefit which arises from a burning koala. 
  

• My opposition agrees that the bible is not completely accurate
  
• “I accept that the Bible is not 100% accurate. I never have believed it, and cannot be convinced otherwise”
  
• Despite this, they build their entire understanding of Genesis 1: 1 by nit picking a single word. 
  
• III.b “The principle word here is “heavens,” which Strong’s Hebrew translation renders as...”
  
• Despite later admitting that 
  
• X.b.2.6 “Finally, a third difficulty: intentional corruption of doctrine based on the bickering over and above translation errors”
  
• It is impossible for my opponent to simultaneously uphold the beliefs that a) the bible is inaccurate and b) the term “heavens” is not to be disputed. 
  
• My opponent provides no rebuttal to my entire first contention.
  

• My opponent makes no case for the existence of God and only provides rebuttals to arguments, one of which I did not even make. 
  
• X Argument: Addressing and defeating the Argument of Biblical Defects
  
• XI  Argument: Addressing and defeating the Problem of Evil 
  
• Note that there is a drastic difference between refuting critiques of your position and making a case for your position. Referring to the garden fairy analogy I presented, note that merely defending your claim against garden fairy sceptics is not sufficient, you must make a case for the garden fairies. 
  
• Thus far, my opponent is therefore defending nothing. 
  

•  Or, consider this explanation, from Satan:  “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods  [plural],  knowing good and evil.”
  
• One must wonder how it is even possible to document what Satan himself said. When testifying at court, if one is to describe an event occuring, they will be asked who witnessed it, does the witness have any agenda’s and is the witness reliable. Moreover, all these factors need to be cleared to a standard of which renders the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. Not only have you ignored the questions which determine the likelihood of this occurring all together, but you then have the audacity to write of this occurrence (Satan’s speech) as a fact and then proceed to use this “fact” to reinforce your case. 
  
• or more lethally yet subtly 
  
• "So, who bloody well ever said that God, being omnipotent, must always act at that extreme level of power, or, for some reason, he is not God?"
  
• In order to make the statement that "even though God is omnipotent that doesn't mean he has to fix everything" you must first make the colossal assumption that God is omnipotent. Why is God omnipotent? 
  
• To once again recycle my garden fairy example, what my opponent has done is akin to saying “well there are no logical issues with my assertion of garden fairies so therefore they must exist”.
  
• Though the idea of fairies dancing in my garden does not contradict any logical laws, this is not synonymous having successfully proved that they exist.
  
• My assertion that there is an IKEA microwave floating in space does not contradict any known facts of humanity, but that in no way means that I have satisfied my burden in proving there is a stranded microwave in space. 
  
• In your response, I request that you make a syllogistic argument for the Christian God's existence.
  

• Interestingly, my opponent dedicates a separate section to purely rebut the Kalam cosmological argument
  
• (the Kalam, not anti-Kalam, for reasons obscure to myself. Why not just rebut my argument?) 
  
• Before I dive into my oppositions critique, the following is the syllogism being investigated 
  
• P1:  Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, 
  
• P2: The universe began to exist
  
• C: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
  
• My opposition states 
  
• “P1 is correct; that which begins to exist, i.e., was created, having no prior existence, was caused to exist. I agree”
  
• Perhaps if you had read my extensive case for why this type of causation is reliant on a faulty view of time, you would not hold this view. You are basing your knowledge of cause and effect on axioms which are discredited by Retrocausality and quantum physics.
  
• My opposition states 
  
• "P2, however, has a flaw: the assumption that the universe began to exist. There is nothing in Pro’s logic to suggest this is true; it is merely assumed because the proposition says so"
  
• My opponent makes the bold claim that the universe did not begin to exist. However, the "infinity" of the universe is an century old analogy of which has been thoroughly debunked and shown to lead to absurd conclusions. If stars had been radiating for an infinite time, they would have heated up the universe to the point where it reached their own temperature. Even at night, the whole sky should be as bright as the Sun, as every line of sight would have ended either on a star or on a cloud of dust that had been heated up until it was as hot as the stars. The observation that the sky is dark at night is very important, as it implies that the universe cannot have existed for ever, in the state we see today. Something must have occurred in the past to make the starts "turn on" a finite time ago. 
  

• "We often point to Genesis 1: 1 . . . Did God create the  entire universe, or just what is immediately around Earth, such as our solar system, or, more likely our galaxy, because stars are included?"
  
• A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. 
  
• Overlooking alternatives. DEFINITION: Saying that two items are causational (one causes the other), when in fact they merely correlate
  
• Both are committed when you ask, "did God create the entire universe, or just what is immediately around Earth". You make the assumption, based on a book which you agree is faulty, that God must have created only that which is observable. 
  
• The fallacies of presumption fails to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions.
  
• This fallacy is committed when you make the assumption that God even exists to begin with. Stating "did God do X" is to assume that God exists to be able to do X. However, as you provide no such evidence for this claim, Hitchens Razor asserts that I can simply ignore it. 
  
• Though my opponent agrees the Kalam Cosmological argument is faulty, they essentially it up as a straw man and shoot it down. If you want something to dismantle, try the argument which I actually made. 
  
• Hence my opponent fails to rebut (or even acknowledge) the anti-Kalam argument. 
  

• My opponent had the following objections 
  
• "P1: False: The creation of the world is not the “most marvellous” creation: that achievement is man, being “in the image of God,” which is the Pro-acknowledged greatest thing in existence, at least in man's perception"
  
• So if I were to conjure up a kid out of thin air, and then precede to literally create the entire universe, you would be more impressed out the prior? 
  
• Moreover, even if creating mankind was the most marvellous thing achievable, God didn't do too good of a job did he, considering all the murders and rapists running around. 
  
• FORSEEABLE REPLY: But God gave people free will, so they have the choice to the whatever they want. 
  
• OBJECTION: But if God created man perfectly in the first place, then they would not have chosen to do wrong, even if they had free will.  If we backtrack from the modern day back to when man was alleged created, somewhere along the line, someone had to have committed the first "sin". Obviously, if you had "perfect parents", definitionally, they would not sin, and would able to perfectly teach their children not to sin, so on. Obviously, somewhere, something has to have gone wrong, something which if people were actually perfect, they would not do. 
  
• "P3: Fails as being merely an assumption"
  
• In what way is this an assumption? What is more impressive, me running a 100 meter sprint in my full form, or me running with one leg. Obviously, me completing the same feat but handicapped is more impressive. It follows that therefore, the more handicapped I am, the more impressive me running 100 metres is. The same applies for the creation of the universe. 
  
• "P4: Fails, since God has no handicap"
  
• Fallacy of presumption. In stating that God has no handicap, you are making the assumption that God exists. 
  
• Moreover, you completely miss the point here. My purpose of this argument is to show that a fully functional God creating a universe is not as impressive as one which is so severally handicapped that it doesn't exist. God, being omnipotent, should be the most impressive thing that there is. 
  
• "P5: Fails, because it is a classic if/then statement, and an assumption that the universe was created"
  
• According to Genesis 1: 1, your universe was created. Moreover, this my whole syllogism can still be used if you are going to nit pick words. Change all references of "universe" to "mankind" and refer to this syllogism again. 
  
• Hence my opponent fails to rebut the anti-ontological argument
  

• My opponent states
  
• "He  [God]  has no explanation for himself.”  From whence comes that little gem It is not biblical, for the Holy Bible, in the creation sequence of Genesis?"
  
• I am appalled at how unchristian my Christian opponent is. God, being the "perfect being", has no explanation for himself in that he does not of someone who created him. It is simple to understand. 
  
• "By the way, relative to an earlier argument of plurality of gods, note the mention, “Let us,” and “our image.”
  
• In case you didn't realise, your God is comprised of the Father, Son and Holy spirit. 
  
• "Therefore, with a repeating pattern, God exists, likewise, as a generational being. The Resolution fails"
  
• It seems my opponent proposes the view that God is created as product of natural selection. However, a God created through this process is not the God which you are arguing in favour for, which renders this entire point false. 
  

• My opponent makes the startling claim that 
  
• " who bloody well ever said that God, being omnipotent, must always act at that extreme level of power, or, for some reason, he is not God? Isn’t that a poor expense of energy?"
  
• Fallacy of presumption. In stating "God, being omnipotent", you are making the assumption that God exists. 
  
• My opponent fails to make the distinction between a being which is merely omnipotent, and a being which is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
  
• The argument that you make will only be sound if God is only all powerful, however, God is allegedly both. Sure, a purely omnipotent being does not always need to act at extreme power levels (what does extreme even mean to a being with infinite power? How is extreme even possible?), but God is all loving. 
  
• If you love something infinitely, you would be willing to do anything for it. Whilst the claim to being all powerful means that you can do anything, being all loving means that you love everything. Love, is a strong affection for another which means that all loving is infinite affection for another. If you are infinitely affectionate for your pet  rabbit, will you watch it burn alive in a situation where it can do nothing else? Sure, being all powerful gives you no binding obligations, but being all loving can only be proved through the state of that being exerting love. A burning rabbit is not loved, it is suffering. 
  
• Consider the following quote by Epicurus 
  
• “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
  
• Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
  
• Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
  
• Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
  
• Your objection appears to be aimed at the second point, that is, why does God need to save everyone,  isn’t that a poor use of energy? Well, if that’s the case, then don’t claim the title of being all loving because if you, an all powerful being “cannot be bothered” to save burning children, you’re clearly malevolent. 
  
• Moreover, my opponent seems to completely have missed the gist of my argument. To aid, I will provide in a more digestible format. 
  
• IF God can do anything THEN they can do something that they do not want to do. 
  
• If God can't do something he doesn’t want to do, he isn’t all powerful, as he cannot do the thing which he does not want to do. 
  
• IF God can do both both the things wants and doesn’t want to do THEN he must be doing everything
  
• When confronted with an option to commit an action, the only option of which God can logically choose from is to do it or not do it. This decision is solely driven by what God wants. He will only do the things which he wants. However, as established above, as God is omnipotent, he can do everything, even something that he doesn’t want to do. Thus, if God does both the things he wants and the things he doesn’t want to do, he will be doing everything. 
  
• THEREFORE, God should be sending a world wide earthquake to kill all of humanity right now. 
  
• Why? If I ask God to send a world wide earthquake to kill everyone, he can either want to do it or not want to do it. However, as I have established, if God is truly omnipotent, he can do things even if he doesn’t want to do them as he is all powerful. Thus logically, there is a contradiction, as everything cannot occur at the same time.
  

• This section is both a rebuttal to my oppositions X argument and an affirmation of my 7th contention. 
  
• Myself and my opponent are in agreement that there are contradictions in the bible. 
  
• However, they create a strawman and spend a considerable amount of characters discussing it. 
  
• The following is the case I will make for bible inaccuracies. You may wish to address this. 
  
• p1. If a book, for whatever reason, contains contradictions or flaws, the claims that it makes should not be trusted. 
  
• p2. The Bible contains contradictions or flaws. 
  
• c1. The Bible should not be trusted. 
  

• Notice how my opposition only allow me to have 2 rounds to rebut to the argument for God which he has finally made. Whilst he has 120 000 characters to rebut my case, I only have half that number.
  
• The glaring issue has been resolved as my opponent has provided an argument for God's existence. 
  
• The bible as a source 
  
• My opponent attempts to point at a supposed contradiction in my case, highlighted by the bold beneath. 
  
• Fauxlaw: Pro’s R2 charge, “In stating ‘God, being omnipotent,’ you are making the assumption that God exists,”  which is, by the nature of the charge, a “fallacy of presumption;” a favoured Pro argument. No, not a presumption, nor an assumption, because Pro has already allowed for the inclusion of the Bible as evidence
  
• Yes the bible is allowed, but is it good evidence? I hope you understand that you have to do more than just citing in order to prove the credibility of your claim. If I were to cite “Thomas” from my bookstore, this would count as “sourcing” but it is as good me citing nothing, as I have not proved the credibility of Thomas. Sure use the bible, but I, you have acknowledged, have already shown that the bible is a faulty source. 
  

• Clearly this demonstrates my opponents lack of understanding in terms of scientific research and methodology. Scientists rarely every assert things as fact, and resort to categorising them as theories. However, the term "theory" is used to describe what many would class as simple facts. From the theory of general relativity to the theory of natural selection, these things are carefully thought out explanation of for the observation of the natural world. The term "theory" is not coined lightly, it is akin to near certainty. 
  

• Unfortunately, my opponent ignores the cumbersome evidence which I provided last round. To recall; 
  

• BIBLE STUDY TOOLS: Genesis 1:1 THE CREATION OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.
  
• "the heaven and the earth"
  
• - the universe. This first verse is a general introduction to the inspired volume, declaring the great and important truth that all things had a beginning; that nothing throughout the wide extent of nature existed from eternity, originated by chance, or from the skill of any inferior agent; but that the whole universe was produced by the creative power of God
  
• BIBLE-STUDIES.ORG: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
  
• “Created”:
  
• (Hebrew bara): Meaning to create, shape or form. This verb is used exclusively with God as its subject. It refers to the instantaneous and miraculous act of God by which He brought the universe into existence. Thus, the Genesis account of Creation refutes atheism, pantheism, polytheism, and evolution.
  
• BLUE-LETTER-BIBLE.ORG:
  
• "Heavens And Earth"
  
• The final phrase in verse one, heavens and the earth, speaks of everything that exists. The Hebrews had no word for universe. When this phrase is used in Scripture it denotes all things that exist. For example, we read in Isaiah.
  
• Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb; I am the Lord, who makes all things, who stretches out the heavens all alone, who spreads abroad the earth by Myself Isaiah 44: 24
  
• BIBLE-REF: 
  
• "What does Genesis 1:1 mean?"
  
• He created everything in the natural world from the heavens, the sky, and space, to our planet and everything on it.
  
• BIBLE-HUB: 
  
• "The heaven and the earth"
  
• The normal phrase in the Bible for the universe (Deuteronomy 32:1; Psalm 148:13; Isaiah 2). To the Hebrew this consisted of our one planet and the atmosphere surrounding it, in which he beheld the sun, moon, and stars. But it is one of the more than human qualities of the language of the Holy Scriptures that, while written by men whose knowledge was in accordance with their times, does not contradict the increased knowledge of later times. Contemporaneous with the creation of the earth was the calling into existence, not merely of our solar system, but of that sidereal universe of which we form so small a part; but naturally in the Bible our attention is confined to that which chiefly concerns ourselves.
  
• EMERGING-SCHOLARS: 
  
• "The message of Genesis 1"
  
• God and God alone created all things
  
• God is sovereign over his creation
  
• God created with wisdom and order
  
• God created man as the pinnacle of his creation
  
• JEHOVAH'S-WITNESS:
  
• "Meaning of Genesis 1:1"
  
• This opening passage of the Bible states two important truths. First, the “heavens and the earth,” or the material universe, had a beginning. Second, they were created by God.
  

• p1. According to the bible, God caused the universe to come into existence. 
  
• True because of the extensive evidence I have provided, none of which my opponent has rebutted.
  
• p2.  If the universe is caused, the A-series of time is true 
  
• Unrefuted by opposition. 
  
• p3. The A-Theory of time is untrue
  
• Unrefuted by opposition. 
  
• c1. The universe is uncaused
  
• c2. There is no cause. 
  
• P1: P --> Q
  
• P2: ¬Q
  
• C: ∴ ¬P
  
• C from P1 and P2, Modus Tollens.
  

• Bones: p1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable
  

• Fauxlaw: The creation of the world is not the “most marvellous” creation: that achievement is man
  

• Bones: What is more impressive, me running a 100-meter sprint in my full form, or me running with one leg. Obviously, me completing the same sprint but handicapped is more impressive. It follows that therefore, the more handicapped I am, the more impressive me running 100 metres is. The same applies for the creation of the universe. 
  
• Observe how this was ignored by my opponent last round. 
  

• Truism 
  

• A re-read of the rebuttal? Let’s see the entire rebuttal which you made last round.
  
• Fauxlaw: Pro defines the sense of Occam’s Razor as “plurality should not be posited without necessity,” but the claim follows an 8,000-word plurality essay with no mention of the Resolution’s subject, and a 6x propositional “syllogism” that fails. Plurality? Pro concludes: “Hence, the theory of which God is not necessary is, according to the law of parsimony, more likely.”  But the Resolution does not speak to the likelihood of necessity, but to the likelihood of non-existence. The razor is dull.
  
• Within the garble, there is one misconception to clarify. My opponent attempts to separate the terms necessary and likely. They nit-pick the sentence “the theory of which God is not necessary” and commentate that this debate is about non-existence, not necessity. Embarrassingly, they ignore the second half of my sentence, being “according to the law of parsimony, [God not existing] is more likely”.
  

• This embarrassing misrepresentation of Occam's razor is almost hilarious. By this logic, I might as well have just typed “no” as my round and won! After all you can’t get much shorter than 0 arguments and 0 rebuttals.
  

• Bones: Whilst Metaphysical naturalism has only two ontological commitments (the physical universe and the laws that govern it), Theism has three commitments (the physical universe, the laws that govern it and a divine being).
  
• Hence, the theory of which God is not necessary is, according to the law of parsimony, more likely.
  

• Underneath the crocodile tears my opponent sheds regarding me supposedly breaching his first amendment right, my opponent exposes what Dawkins may call a “consciousness raiser”. Notice how my opponent is free to interpret the bible in any way that he wants and when questioned, flexes his amendment rights. Imagine if this were history. Imagine if we were debating about the holocaust, and I stated
  
• I will remind my opponent to never assume what my holocaust beliefs are, which stipulate that the whole event did not even occur and that this is just an international sympathy-attracting hoax.
  
• Whilst you are entitled to your own opinion, facts remain facts regardless of your emotion.
  
• Though this point is not directly related to this debate, it is worth noting how coddled the religious are, which makes intelligent conversation all the more difficult.
  

• You’re a Christian and you’re hypothesising about other Gods which made your God?
  
• Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb; I am the Lord, who makes all things, who stretches out the heavens all alone, who spreads abroad the earth by Myself Isaiah 44: 24
  
• And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me". Exodus 20:1-3
  
• for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God Exodus 34:14
  

• God creating God? This is a textbook example of an infinite regress. Who created the first God, if God is a being who is only created by Gods? 
  

• He created all the natural, complex phenomena in the universe
  
• He has no explanation for himself
  

• He is at least as complex as the natural, complex phenomena in the universe
  
• He has no explanation for himself
  

• Is at least as complex as the natural, complex phenomena in the universe,
  
• Has no explanation for its existence
  

• Doing “what is necessary” is not all loving. If you raise a child, and you give them the bare minimum to survive, “what is necessary”, you are not all loving, you’re a dickhead. If all that is required to have the snazzy title of being omnibenevolent is giving someone “what is necessary”, I could throw my breadcrust at some homeless man, and as long as they survive off it, even if it is just, I can get the title of being “all loving”.
  
• Even if this was the case, God is not doing “what is necessary” to keep justice around the globe. As my animal suffering contention asserts, there are billion of vertebrates alone which are suffering unimaginable pain at this moment, not because of “free will”, or a strive to “the greater good”, or as “punishment”, but because they are quite helplessly placed into that situation. More one this in the next contention. 
  
• Furthermore, it appears that the distinction between omnipotent and omnibenevolent is still unclear to my opponent. Consider the following analogy which magnifies their differences. 
  
• A claim to omnipotence is like a claim stating "I can cure anyone of blindness" while a claim to omnibenevolence is like stating "I cure all blindness".
  
• The prior does not oblige one to any action. Asserting that you have ability to cure blindness is not a synonyms to saying you have to cure blindness. 
  
• This is similar to omnipotence. Stating you have the power to do anything does not require you to do anything (I will question the validity of this claim later). 
  
• The latter does oblige one to an action. Asserting that you actively cure all blindness requires you to cure all people with blindness. 
  
• This is similar to omnibenevolence. Stating that you love everyone infinitely requires you to an action, that being to love everyone. 
  
• To use another example, imagine you have just burnt your parents alive and have been caught by the police. In the interrogation room, when asked if you love your parents, it would you be right to say "yeah I love them and all that, but that doesn't mean I always have to love them, after all that would be poor expense of energy"
  
• This example epitomise how love requires action to prove. You cannot "take a break" from loving and still claim that you love someone. As soon as you stop loving, by virtue of truism, you are no longer loving the being. Thus, it is impossible to both love a being whilst putting it into a situation in which it has no choice but to suffer. 
  
• Fauxlaw: “Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?”  Epicurus has no grounding in understanding Genesis, wherein God allows free agency, even to Satan to tempt man, and to man to resist Satan, or not. Evil originates, and is spread by Satan.
  
• First half is ad hominem, and second half is poor. Free agency? I remember addressing that by bringing up the animal suffering contention. Recall from round 1. 
  
• Theists may recognise that this argument is similar to that of the “problem of evil”, however I personally regard this variant to be far superior. The following objections which are often used to reply to the “problem of evil”
  
• Humans suffer as a result of free will 
  
• Humans will be compensated in the after life 
  
• Suffering exists because from it, more good can immerge 
  
• do not sufficiently reply to the problem of animal suffering. To number 1, free will does not reply to why wild bush fires set alight koalas, causing them undeniable agony. Nothing within the koala's ability allows it to escape such an event.
  
• Fauxlaw: Pro further confuses his position by admitting that,  “Sure, a purely omnipotent being does not always need to act at extreme power levels…” and questions what “extreme” means. It means omnipotent.
  
• Fauxlaw, furiously repeating your desired conclusion will get you no where. I clearly demonstrated last round that there is no way for an omnipotent being be "stretched to the limits". Recall
  
• Bones: First, the lesser issue. Omnipotence is infinite power. If you divide infinite by any finite percent, the result is still infinite. If God decides to act with 1% of his power, this is still infinitely more than a humans maximum. 
  
• It follows that even if God were to use less than a trillionth of a percent of his power, this number will still be infinite. 
  
• Thus it is clear that this is not an issue of God stretching himself, or even tiring himself in any way, it becomes a debate about whether God is omnibenevolent. 
  

• "has the means to identify what is true and what is not true"
  
• This is an unproved statement which I am left to simply assume is true. 
  

• As is established in the first half of P1, the bible contains contradictions. 
  
• Using the contradictory book, we are supposed to find truth within it's pages. 
  
• Consider the double standard of which the Bible is operation at. If this were a debate about history, and I bring up a source of which has severe contradictions, from wrong dates to wrong names, it would surely be illogical to then use this source to establish truth. 
  

• Consider this absolute gem. 
  
• Fauxlaw: One may argue the validity of these means [P2], but if one will try, having an honest and sincere heart of desire, having real intent, and avoiding doubt, the truth of these means is possible to know by the power of the Holy Spirit.
  
• Fact and evidence operates whether one has a "heart of desire, real intent and avoiding doubt". In fact, the purpose of facts is to operate on a level where intentions and desires are not considered. 1+1 is 2 regardless of whether I have a sincere heart to peruse the truth. And even so, we all know that by "honest and sincere heart of desire", you are referring to religious people. Atheist scum bags aren't invited. 
  
• "truth of these means is possible to know by the power of the Holy Spirit". Yes, the syllogism which is supposed to prove that God exists only works if you believe in the Holy Spirit. This is the pinacol of circular reasoning. 
  

• IF God can do anything THEN they can do something that they do not want to do. 
  
• If God can't do something he doesn’t want to do, he isn’t all powerful, as he cannot do the thing which he does not want to do. 
  
• IF God can do both both the things wants and doesn’t want to do THEN he must be doing everything
  
• When confronted with an option to commit an action, the only option of which God can logically choose from is to do it or not do it. This decision is solely driven by what God wants. He will only do the things which he wants. However, as established above, as God is omnipotent, he can do everything, even something that he doesn’t want to do. Thus, if God does both the things he wants and the things he doesn’t want to do, he will be doing everything. 
  
• THEREFORE, God should be sending a world wide earthquake to kill all of humanity right now. 
  
• Why? If I ask God to send a world wide earthquake to kill everyone, he can either want to do it or not want to do it. However, as I have established, if God is truly omnipotent, he can do things even if he doesn’t want to do them as he is all powerful. Thus logically, there is a contradiction, as everything cannot occur at the same time.
  

• p1. If a book, for whatever reason, contains contradictions or flaws, the claims that it makes should not be trusted. 
  
• p2. The Bible contains contradictions or flaws. 
  
• c1. The claims of the Bible should not be trusted. 
  

• Bones: Consider the double standard of which the Bible is operation at. If this were a debate about history, and I bring up a source of which has severe contradictions, from wrong dates to wrong names, it would surely be illogical to then use this source to establish truth. 
  

1. Motion. Nothing moves without a prior mover
   
2. Causation. Nothing causes itself 
   
3. Contingency. If nothing existed first, then nothing could have been created.
   

• The first issue is that it is entirely unwarranted to assume that God is immune to the regress. In fact, the second of Aquinas's proofs, "nothing causes itself" should on its own, if valid, debunk the entire idea of God. For the question arises, what caused God? 
  
• This is a clear example of the special pleading fallacy, where one creates an expectation or rule without justifying why that case deservers exemption. For my opponent to assert that everything in motion is caused to be in motion by something else, except for God, without adequately justifying why this is the case on its own can render the first 3 "ways" false.   
  
• The second issue is that even if we accept the first 3 statements, this will only prove that an unmoved mover exists. It would not prove this unmoved mover still exists, is a being, is conscious, posses the 4 omni's, listen to prayers, forgive people of their sins, read the innermost thoughts of people or that he created an afterlife for all good people to congregate. 
  
• In other words, even if we allow for the premises to be correct, this in no way renders Fauxlaw's interpretation of Christianity to be true, for an Islam, Druze and Zoroastrianism could all use this argument to justify there own God. 
  

• The first issue is that one does not need a "maximum" to judge an action, they can simply compare it to what is neutral. For example, I do not need to know how to perfectly raise my pet in order to know that smashing it's skull onto a brick wall is not productive for its well being. I can compare smashing my pets skull onto a brick wall(evil) with not smashing it's skull into a brick (neutral) and determine that the prior is good for my pet. 
  
• The second issue is that even if I were to grant that a maximum is required to judge an action, it is possible to substitute any dimension of comparison for the term "perfect". For example, one could argue that there are degrees of evil, and therefore there must be an infinitely evil being, let's call him God. 
  

• The first issue is that this commits the false analogy fallacy. The syllogism is flawed as it concludes that because two things share one similarity, they must also share other qualities. To magnify the issue, consider the following
  
• p1. A dog is an animal
  
• p2. The animal has legs 
  
• p3. A snake is an animal
  
• c1. A snake has legs
  
• The second issue is that this is a false cause fallacy. This is done when it is asserted that complexity can only be caused by a designer. Not only has this never been proven to be true, it has actually been proven to be completely incorrect. Natural selection has been completely and utterly proven to be an unconscious process which has given rise to countless complex organisms. In other words, we know as a fact that natural can, does and has produced remarkably complex organism without a complex or intelligent hand behind it. 
  
• The truth of the matter is that the reason why humans recognise watches as designed actually has nothing to do with how complex a watch is, it is because we know the watch was designed.
  
• Across the world, there are millions of examples of watches being created by a designer, and zero examples of a watches being made without designers. 
  
• On the contrary, we have zero examples of life being created by a designer, and millions of examples of nature creating complex life. 
  

• Bones: P1, the most marvellous creation is man, is pretty digestible, as it was a statement that my opponent made leaving no room for digestion. P2, doing X when handicapped is more marvellous than doing it not handicapped is also very simple (who would reasonably say running 100 meters is easier with 1 leg than with 2?). Therefore it follows that if a non-existent God is more marvellous than an existent God, the Christian God is not real, as it alleges to both exist and be the most marvellous.
  

• CON postulates "a continuous pattern of humans becoming Gods, begetting/creating subsequent generations of man, who become gods, and so on, from eternity to eternity"
  

• PRO points at the red herring and reminds his opponent that this debate is about the Christian God, which allegedly created everything (he is supposed to be the most powerful being, of which nothing else is more powerful). 
  
•  I am the Lord, who makes all things Isaiah 44: 24 
  
• PRO further exposes that this is an infinite regress. 
  

• CON states "I’ve argued that as God created us, thus he, himself, began, as a mortal man who has progressed beyond mortality into a god, a supreme being."
  

• PRO opened by asserting that an omnibenevolent being would not allow for animals to suffer needlessly. PRO demonstrated that the usual objections to the problem of evil, namely free will, does not sufficiently reply to the animal suffering problem, as "free will does not reply to why wild bush fires set alight koalas, causing them undeniable agony". 
  

• CON replies by stating that there is no biblical indication that God created a perfect world.
  

• PRO states
  
• According to you, God is both all loving and all powerful. Something which posses unlimited goodness is something which loves without limit. If you love something, especially if the love is unlimited, you would not allow it to suffer, especially if the suffering is a result of factors outside of their control. 
  
• Furthermore, they provide the following syllogism 
  
• p1. If you love something without limit you would not put it in a situation where it suffers outside of it's control and where it doesn't gain anything 
  
• p2. There are beings which are put in situations where they are suffering outside of their control and not gaining anything
  
• c1. God is not all loving. 
  

• CON asserts;
  
• Pro alleges that God should have created a perfect creation. What’s the point, given the purpose of our creation in the first place? 
  
• CON drops the argument that PRO made. 
  
• CON drops the syllogism that PRO made. 
  

• PRO calls out the fact that CON drops both his arguments. PRO aptly reply to allegations that they want a "perfect world" from God by stating
  
• This is not what I have alleged, this is what your belief should entitle.
  
• PRO extends his syllogism. 
  

• CON states "all living things experience suffering. That’s life. It is allowed by God’s free will"
  
• CON replies to the syllogism by stating 
  
• Bones: P2: if everyone is loved, then they would not suffer for any reason.
  
• Fauxlaw: And they don’t suffer for no reason. They suffer, at times, for their own actions.
  

• Bones: "free will does not reply to why wild bush fires set alight koalas, causing them undeniable agony". 
  

• PRO opened with multiple syllogisms which prove that exposes the contradiction of a supreme being. The following is a shortened version of it. 
  
• p1. God can do anything
  
• p2. God can do something that he doesn't want to
  
• p3. God can do X action even if he doesn't want to
  
• c1. If God didn't make you do X said task because he didn't want to, God is not omnipotent, as he cannot do things that he does not want to do
  
• c2. If God didn't do said task because he cannot, God is not omnipotent, as he cannot do a certain 
  

• CON does not understand my argument and vaguely asserts the importance of free will. 
  
• I have no idea to what Pro refers
  
• Moreover, CON voices a common objection to religion 
  
• One would think one could imagine a more probable complaint but that God is omnipotent, so why doesn’t he… eliminate all suffering, for example... Isn’t that a poor expense of energy?
  

• The two "arguments" were not arguments at all. The first is a rebuttal against an argument I made, and the second is a rebuttal of an argument I didn't make. I urge voters to take not of the difference between an argument and a rebuttal. Even if, for example, my opponent shows that the problem of evil is not a problem, that does not in any way prove the existence of God, it only proves that a popular argument against God is invalid. This would be akin to me "proving" that there is a teapot orbiting earth by refuting all scepticism. Of course, even if there is no valid argument against the orbiting tea pot, the idea can be discarded if evidence is not provided for it. 
  
• Moreover, take not that my opponent has provided 2 new arguments in the second last round of this debate, giving me only 1 round to rebut both the arguments. Consider, on the other hand, myself, who made their 7 contentions crystal clear from the first round.
  
• Fauxlaw: I do not  “fire all of my guns at once
  
• Great, next time, I'll waive my first round, let you make your weak case for God and wait until the second last round to fire all VII contentions at you, giving you only 1 round to rebut them, affirm your case and conclude. Good strat, actually! 
  

Pro begins by the absurdity that motion, cause and contingency are saying the same thing. No, I disagree. 

• My opponent drops the first issue, being that "it is entirely unwarranted to assume that God is immune to the regress". 
  
• This is a clear example of the special pleading fallacy
  
• My opponent drops the second issue being "that even if we accept the first 3 statements, this will only prove that an unmoved mover exists. It would not prove this unmoved mover still exists, is a being, is conscious, posses the 4 omni's, listen to prayers, forgive people of their sins, read the innermost thoughts of people or that he created an afterlife for all good people to congregate"
  

• The third issue, being that "one does not need a "maximum" to judge an action, they can simply compare it to what is neutral. For example, I do not need to know how to perfectly raise my pet in order to know that smashing it's skull onto a brick wall is not productive for its well being. I can compare smashing my pets skull onto a brick wall(evil) with not smashing it's skull into a brick (neutral) and determine that the prior is good for my pet"
  

• The fourth issue being "even if I were to grant that a maximum is required to judge an action, it is possible to substitute any dimension of comparison for the term "perfect". For example, one could argue that there are degrees of evil, and therefore there must be an infinitely evil being, let's call him God"
  
• The implication of this is that even if the "perfection" argument is granted as true, it still does not warrant the Christian God. It only implies that anything of which varies in degrees must have a maximum. As stated above, this warrants an evil, misogynistic, homophobic, jealous, stingy and brutal God. Wait dammit, I just proved the Christian God exists. 
  

• Bones: The argument usually uses an analogy of which goes along the lines of "a painting requires a painter to paint". The teleological argument uses the following syllogism, or a variation. 
  
• I provided a source of what the teleological argument is and proceeded to rebut it. How my opponent thinks I have mixed up causation and teleology is beyond more. 
  
• Recall that the following arguments were also,  unsurprisingly, dropped by my opponent. 
  
• The fifth issue is that this commits the false analogy fallacy. The syllogism is flawed as it concludes that because two things share one similarity, they must also share other qualities. 
  
• The sixth issue is that this is a false cause fallacy. This is committed when it is asserted that complexity can only be caused by a designer. Not only has this never been proven to be true, it has actually been proven to be completely incorrect.
  
• I recommend a thorough re-read of these two cases where I elaborate with examples and syllogism.