The god of the bible does not exist

Let’s judge Backwardseden’s third round by the rules he himself set out in his opening challenge: Prove that there is only one creator/ god. If it were not for rule 3, I’d have gone down a route of pointing to the cosmological evidence for the big bang and argued that a point of singularity better supports the hypotheses that the universe was brought into being by one cause/creator than multiple. As Backwardseden has specifically asked me not to go down a scientific route, I instead took note of rule 4 and gave him a Bible verse in support of monotheism (although I decided to go with 1 Timothy 2:5, There are plenty of others I could have chosen - for example Ephesians 4:6, Deuteronomy 4:35, Nehemiah 9:6, 1 Chronicles 17:20 to name just a few) So what has Backwardseden offered in response to this? Backwardseden seems to think that describing Jesus as a mediator contradicts the Old Testament. This is not the case – when, For example, God spoke to Moses through a burning bush the bush was not playing the rule of a mediator and therefore there is no contradiction. Backwardseden offers nothing new in his third round and simply tells me that “I’ve lost my case yah”. Well I think Backwardseden has lost their case, Does that now make us even? Backwardseden also thinks that the trinity contradicts monotheism. According to the BBC’s guide to religions it is a common mistake to assume the trinity is “Three Gods” (http://www. Bbc. Co. Uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/trinity_1. Shtml) Calling the doctrine “trash” doesn’t change this. Backwardseden argument that Genesis and the New Testament can’t have anything to do with each other because they weren’t written at the same time commits the fallacy of begging the question (to completely rule out the possibility that the Bible was divinely inspired presupposes the very thing your argument is meant to ultimately be proving! ) Test, Demonstrate and assert this god. Presumably using the conditions laid in rules 3 and 4… No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any to prove its god's existence. Using the word ‘so-called’ and excluding scientific reasoning from this debate shows that is Backwardseden who lacks respect for the scientific method, Not me. Backwardseden cannot ban me from using scientific arguments and then complain when I comply. He asks me if I think I’m smarter than Neil De Gras Tyson, Stephen Hawking etc. I happy to declare that no, I don’t think I’m smarter than these people. Does Backwardseden think he’s smarter than John Polkinghorne, Frances Collins, Simon Conway Morris and all the other distinguished scientists that believe modern science does point towards God? Chapters and verses only please from either the KJV, NIV, NLT. Does randomly linking to a 38 minute Youtube video meet this rule? No! Therefore I am under no obligation to watch it. Does asserting that text is the worst form of communication possible (without backing your assertion up) and resorting to ad hominem attacks adhere to this rule? No! Does accusing creationism of failing to stand-up in a court of law (I’m a theistic evolutionist, By the way) meet this rule? No! It’s always important to define your terms in a debate; as you’ve defined proof/evidence as providing you with a Bible chapter and verses then that is what I can done. If you don't like this definition then that's your fault for creating this rule. For extra credit, Prove that any god has ever existed. This rule is unnecessary – if I can show that the God of the Bible exists then I’ve automatically succeeded at this. Dsjpk5 is disqualified from any voting procedures for this debate. You claim that Dsjpk5 is the sole reason you’ve lost most of the debates you’ve participated in. Having looked at some of your previous debates and the reasons people have left for voting against you, It’s your name calling and use of ad hominem attacks that is the main reason you keep losing debates. Perhaps you should reconsider your debate strategy?