The Christian God is the likeliest of all the gods from thoughout time.

I will try to respond to Con's points briefly so as not to bog down the argument.1. We are basically saying the same thing here, although I could have worded it a little better. What I was indicating is Con has the burden of proof to show that there are no better reasons to believe in the Christian god than any other. In point of fact, Con did not really offer any reasons as to why these other gods would be just as believable or more believable than the Christian god.2. Con has confused perfection with power. While the Greek gods are said to be more powerful than we are, they are not better than we are. However, God claims to be perfect. This does not make God unbelievable. I could claim to be perfect, but that would not suddenly make my existence impossible. It would just mean that if my actions didn't measure up with my beliefs, then I would be a liar. Even if it were shown that God was lying when He claimed to be perfect, this does not disprove His existence. And Con has not shown any evidence that God is not perfect.3. Jealousy and vengeance are not bad qualities. If a woman is married and her husband spends all his time with another woman, would she not be justified in her jealousy? In the same way, God is justified in His jealousy when we, His creation, seek other gods to worship (or no god). Also, God does not arbitrarily seek vengeance on those He doesn't like. His vengeance is righteous vengeance. He brings judgement on those who deserve it. This, again, does not make Him imperfect; quite the contrary. This makes Him uniquely qualified to judge us because as an omniscient God, He has all the information.4. I have explained where I got this idea in my opening argument; I am not at fault if Con did not understand my argument. We do not "create" other humans, we produce them. God created us as a race of beings. We act within God's framework of procreation to keep our species going. As such, we can create artificial lifeforms which give the appearance of life but they lack key components of life, such as free will (they can only act within their programming), and sentience. Sentient artificial lifeforms with free will are the stuff of science fiction. We could not create beings like ourselves or better than ourselves, only beings which are less than ourselves.5. Again, Con has given no reason to doubt God's perfection other than we can't see it around us. By his logic, we can doubt gravity, and we can even doubt the past as we haven't seen it. The fact that we can't be perfect actually lends credibility to the existence of a perfect God because we have been created by a Being better than us, not flawed beings like the ones Con supposes.6. I will concede this point to Pro, as I also do believe we worship the same God as Jews. However, this actually works in my favor because if we worship the same God (just believing different things about Him), then I don't have to show why the God of the Bible is more believable than the god of the Qu'ran.7. It is true that the Bible speaks in complete unity. I have debated Con on this before. He seems to be on a crusade to "prove" the Bible contains contradictions but so far has been unsuccessful in doing so. This is no different. I will show how the examples Con provided are not a contradiction.In the future, I would ask that Con please give chapter and verse to make it easier to look up the passages in question.It actually lends credibility to the Gospel accounts that they differ in some aspects. If they were exactly the same, then accusations of plagiarism could be leveled against the Gospels. But just like if a police officer asks different witnesses to give their version of the story, there are certain differences in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection because they are by different authors. They are not contradictory, just different.Matthew doesn't say "only one" angel came. He says "an angel came and rolled away the stone." This does not contradict the Gospel of Luke, which more specifically says there were two angels there. Matthew doesn't record that the women went inside or described it, but this doesn't mean they didn't.In Mark, there was an extra person (Salome, which Matthew didn't mention although like with the angels, Matthew didn't say that "only" Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James, went). Mark also doesn't mention the earthquake but again, nothing in the text of Mark contradicts that there was an earthquake. Mark just mentions that after questioning who would roll the stone away, they looked up and it had been rolled away. Perhaps the earthquake got their attention, they looked toward the stone and noticed it had been rolled away.Now, Luke is not specific on how many women actually went, just that "the women who came with Him [Jesus] from Galilee went." This could have just been the three women already mentions, Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome. Or it could have been more; but again, nothing in Matthew or Mark contradicts that there could have been more women. The number of women present there wasn't important. Now Luke is not necessarily specific about the event, just "they found the stone rolled away." This doesn't contradict Matthew and Mark, Luke is just not concerned about how the stone was rolled away.For example, let's say Bob went to the store. It was five minutes before it was supposed to open but he met a cashier there, talked for a few minutes, then opened the store two minutes early. Bob buys some items then goes home. His tells him wife, "guess what? I went to the store and it was open a couple minutes early so I bought a few things." Did Bob lie? No, because even though he was there five minutes early and saw the cashier open the store a couple minutes early, he wasn't lying by omitting those facts. They just weren't relevant.Now, we see in John's example of the resurrection that the first three accounts were not wrong, just not very specific. John gives a more specific account of the events. Mary did not approach alone, she is the only one mentioned by name. In fact, look what she says: "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." We do not know. The other women were with her, just not specifically mentioned by name. Then we see that she ran back to tell the disciples, and Peter and John ran back to the tomb to check things out. It's after that event that we see the two angels in white. The other three accounts omitted some events, but don't contradict the account in John.I have sufficiently shown that these are not contradictions, so Con's accusation fails. Also, I'm not sure he's even actually read them if he can't think of one common fact they all share (how about the fact Jesus was crucified, the fact Jesus rose, and the fact that there was angelic encounters there, among others).8. Looking in the Bible to prove its credibility is not circular logic; it is essential. Looking in the Bible to prove God's existence is circular logic. How else can we prove the Bible's credibility than to look at its claims, specifically.I am running low on characters, but aside from the fact the Bible was written by over 40 different authors and yet speaks in complete unity, there are very specific prophecies that have been fulfilled and verified from the Scriptures, and the fact that the Scriptures are a little more down to earth makes them believable. There is no evidence that Greek gods existed, though they supposedly had numerous interactions with humans. However, an encounter with God or angels was actually a rare occurrence in Scripture. However, there is no evidence the Greek gods ever existed, yet there is much evidence for belief in the God of the Bible.