The possibility of a Christian God existing is highly improbable

Rebuttals Contention 1"Pro’s case is either too weak or irrelevant. Weak because there is a difference in defending that there is no need for a God and defending that the possibility of God is unlikely. In principle, even if it were true that the universe is explainable without reference to a transcendent God doesn't mean that therefore Christianity is likely incoherent, which is what Pro must defend. "This is inaccurate and also makes no sense. I gave a step by step walk through and explained how we are dealing in odds of probability. We can see this in Occam's Razor. There is no need to add a secondary cause for the universe when everything is already explained by science. With this logic anything could have created the universe. We can simply say that (x value), was the cause of it. The tooth fairy, the cookie monster, Barack Obama anything could have created the universe if this is the case. He then claims he does not need to show that such a cause is truth, but likely possible. I would disagree with this sentiment. When Con is claiming that an external being is likely possible, he must show how and why it is possible. I have shown that the universe and the mechanics within it can be explained by science, Con would have to demonstrate the need to change this. Basically God must be a necessity and have empirical evidence to support him. This is not the case. I have shown this with morals, the creation of the universe, and even the chance of the Christian God existing. Contention 2"Irrelevant because the existence of other religions doesn't play into the resurrection hypothesis R especially given the evidence for it."Again this is false and pretty close to a straw man. We are arguing the likelihood of a Christian God existing. John 17:3 - "And this is eternal life, that they know you—the only true God."[1] There are a multitude of verses like this within the bible, claiming that the Christian God is the one true God. With the bible having the claim to this and Christians believing this is true it is a huge factor. If one other deity exists, then the bible and the truth about Christianity is false. Remember we are dealing in odds of probability. It clearly states there can only be one good, so for Christianity to be true every other deity must be false. This makes the chance of this highly improbable which supports the resolution. Even if pro were to claim that this is flawed in translation, it is found in the original texts in the bible itself. The root word "emet" or truth in Hebrew is usually followed by 1. Basically when you read a lexicon or translate the bible God is often described as "the one true" God. [2]Contention 3MoralityCon trys to explain his by saying God could not commit a moral act. That does not answer the question that is posed however. It is a solution that must be solved. If God were to command an immoral act, would it be moral? If so God would not be moral. If he is simply an observer of what is right and wrong, he is not the objective standard for morality anymore.Either way God is no the only way in which we can gauge morality. The well being of others is one type of gauge for it. Anything that can progress us as a species is another. You can view it like this. Anything that helps or benefits us could be considered moral, anything that causes harm or pain could be immoral. This brings up some other questions, but all can be explain through philosophical thought. This would be a never ending process. Again you are assigning a value to objective morality. Con says you can not simply say human flourishing is a measure, and I disagree. He also gave no reason as to why I am not permitted to do this. Human flourishing by itself is a way to measure it. Anything that can cause harm is bad, whatever does not is permissible. Shelly Kagan also address this question in what he calls a veil of ignorance. Kagan calls the “veil of ignorance” a place where all prejudices are stripped away, so that someone can look at the topic of morality from a strictly impartial viewpoint. This objective standpoint is necessary in order to come up with a true definition of what an objective morality might be. From this standpoint, objective morality is the set of rules we would give to ourselves if we were perfectly rational beings, and something that could apply to every human being with emotion and self interests left out. For instance, it would be possible to make the statement “Murder is wrong in all possible worlds”, because of the harm it causes to others. All this is based upon the idea of rational and reasonable needs within humanity. This in itself is a perfect explanation for how morality can be gauged. This is essentially based off a proposition made by John Rawl [3]He is saying (x) is the objective standard for why morality exists. This has to take into account for a few things(1) If there is actually an objective standard for morality(2) That God is the one and only external measure for moralityI have just given a few reasons and explanations why there could be other external objects or perspectives that could serve as an objective Gauge. For Con to argue this, he must show that God is the one true objective gauge. Rebuttal 4"yes, the razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed theoretical scrutiny tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence. But a simpler but less correct theory should not be always preferred over a more complex but more correct one"Con is missing the principle behind Occam's razor. It is just not that a simple theory that is preferred, but the simplest theory should be upheld until empirical evidence supporting a new theory arises. We do not see this in Christianity. Rebuttal 5Problem of EvilCon trys to counter this by saying "There is a great deal more good than evil int he world, otherwise everyone would be committing suicide". This is a fallacy at heart. Whether or not there is more good or evil is irrelevant and is in fact a non sequitur. The issue is not comparing good vs evil, but answering the question as to why God lets it occur. If God is perfectly moral, he would be compelled to not let evil happen. Trying to weigh good vs evil, is not answer to this dilemma.Rebuttal 6Resurrection I guess Con wants to base his one argument around this. So we will go here for now. Ask yourself how plausible is the Resurrection? Lets start by going over a few things. (1) Jesus did exist but not as a God on earth(2) He was crucified(3) The body was not in the tomb There are a few issues with this. The first is that I am conceding the fact that the accounts in the bible and from biblical scholars are true. Let us go with that for now. First this is assuming one of ten ossuraies that were found, was in fact the tomb that Jesus was burred in [4]. This is arrived at by writings on some of the walls within the ossuraies. Let us say that this was the tomb. The crucifixion would have been public knowledge and not just the disciples but pharisees, guards, and everyone in royalty at the time would have had the location or an idea of where the tomb was located. Just think about all the possible reasons the body could have been missing(1) The disciples stole it(2) The pharisees stole it(3) Guards stole it(4) Tomb Robbers stole itThe case goes on and on. There could have been to many people who wanted to rob the tomb for the claims he was making about being the son of Christ, and that is even if all those accounts were true. The main source to support any of this is the bible, which Con would have to prove to be factual in order to have evidence to support it one way or another. The only evidence outside of the bible, is the ten ossuaries that were found. That does not give credibility to any thing in the bible itself, but just the fact that Jesus existed. Post Mortem appearances. I don't even feel the need to go into this deeply but it is self explanatory. This can be explained away by a multitude of things. Hallucinations and the like are probably the most basic explanation. This is assume that the bible is true again and the accounts in it are accurate. Here is the issue with using the bible as a source of evidence. There is no evidence outside of the bible that verifies the events that transpired in the bible are true. The bible is its own singular source of evidence. If the bible were true things such as people being raised from the dead, people being cured of blindness, demons going into pigs would have been recorded by a secondary source and this is not the case. We see historical accounts all the way back to Mesopotamia and the time of Hammurabi. This era is no different, if the first civilization on earth could have recorded information the Hebrews could have as well. The only outside source to every mention miracles or events in the bible was Josephus, whom is considered a fraud because of how he lied about the accounts at Masada and other places[5]In Closing. I have shown how God is not a necessity and therefore his existence is highly improbable. Everything can be explained with science, and Con is seeking to add God into the equation without empirical evidence. For a Christian God to exist, every other deity must be false, and con must show that a God is in fact a necessity. He has failed to do so. The most logical conclusion is that there is no need for a God anymore, and without the need of a god or empirical evidence to support it the likelihood is that the possibility of a God existing is highly improbable. [1] http://www.biblegateway.com...[2] http://www.studylight.org...[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...[4] Viegas, Jennifer (2007-02-25). "Jesus Family Tomb Believed Found". Discovery Channel. Retrieved 2007-02-28.[5] http://www.pbs.org...