The Christian God is more likely to exist than Pagan Gods

My opponent states that I did not answer his questions. I ask, what questions did I not answer? What would the lying disciples have gained? I already answered that question and even clarified that they need not even "lie" to resolve the problem, but may simply have not even existed! Do I have any arguments for Zeus? No. Of course not. Does my opponent have any "valid" arguments for the Christian God? No. Of course not. My opponent posts 6 outside links suggesting that these links provide legitimate and valid arguments for the existence of a Christian God. This isn't my responsibility (nor do I even have room with 8,000 characters) to refute all of the arguments on all of the links my opponent has posted. The big issue here is discriminating between simple arguments and legitimate and valid arguments. The basis of my opponent's arguments is this: Premises: There are arguments for God. Premises: There are no arguments for Zeus. Conclusion: God is more likely than Zeus. This argument is fallacious in the extreme. My opponent assumes, and this is the basis of his argument and the flaw of his argument, that just because arguments exist for God these arguments must have weight. This is a flaw in logic. None of the arguments are valid, nor do they have weight. Jesus's existence is, in fact, strongly debated among scholars today. My opponent claims that no biblical scholars lend credence to the idea that Jesus might not have existed. This is false. See: Pagels, Elaine, "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent," Vintage Books, New York, 1888 Pagels, Elaine, "The Origin of Satan," Random House, New York, 1995 Price, Robert M.," Deconstructing Jesus," Prometheus Books, 2000 Gauvin, Marshall J http://www.infidels.org... etc. There is a ton of controversy about the validity and historical accuracy of the gospels as well as the very existence of Jesus himself. My opponent contends that "the sources are wrong" or the "witnesses were mistaken" are not valid explanations. I ask: Why? Why are these not valid explanations? Whenever we see historical records of supernatural things that can't exist, that we know don't exist, like Sea monsters, dragons, mythological creatures, miracles, feats of supernatural ability, etc....The most provided scholarly explanations are that either the sources are wrong or the witnesses were wrong. Simple as that. You provided prophecy as an argument in your "B" argument, stating that "Jesus was foretold by the Old Testament". I rebutted this and offered contrary evidence to this statement proving that Jesus was, in fact, NOT foretold by the O.T. See my previous post. My opponent claims that 75% of scholars believe that the Tomb was empty? Even if this is true, there are different hypothesis concerning "WHY" the tomb was empthy, even if it was in fact empty: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... So, even if the tomb was discovered empty (A fact debated by scholars), There are many much more reasonable and non-paranormal explanations concerning this event that do not require resurrection from the dead, supernatural powers, God visiting earth in the form of a man 2,000 years ago, etc... I argue that the simplest explanation is the best explanation. Conclusion, My opponent makes many logical fallacies as well as leaps of logic in attempts to justify his position. A summary of my responses to his arguments. o Jesus was prophesied by the O.T. Jesus was not, in fact, many O.T. prophecies contradict the N.T. accounts of Jesus. (See post above) o. There are 2 messiahs? This doesn't fit with Christian tradition. We are arguing the likelyhood of the "Christian" God here. Not something my opponent has fabricated. o. There is one Messiah but the prophecies will be fulfilled at different times? This isn't stated in either the O.T. or the N.T. And the O.T. seems to be the source of what my opponent is basing his prophecy argument on. So, if the O.T> doesn't state that the prophecies will be fulfilled at different times then I don't see how my opponent can make that argument. He is making up stuff as he goes along. o. The prophecy is conditional? Please clarify this. Thanks. No one was ignored, I just lost track of time.