I actually met god in a dark back corner of a busy street

Well then.Instead of attempting to refute any of my points, you have launched into a completely separate argument than what you began the debate with. This further complicates the debate. You, in essence, have started a second debate completely different than the first. To remind you, in case you forgot: your first round consisted of yourself posing twenty-nine arguments in the form of a narrative in which you met God and asked him separate questions. I tried to answer six of your questions, because twenty-nine is too much for a single debate.Then..."I've got genuine friends whereas you probably don't."Ad hominem, my friend, is the sign of weakness. By resorting to mudslinging and insults, you surrender logical ground on the basis that you do not respect me as your opponent. This is not your website, this is DDO, and whatever preconceived "rules" you may have are irrelevant. A good debater treats his opponent with respect, while the poor debater throws vile insults in lieu of rational arguments. The goal of a debate is not to be "original, funny, stupid, deranged, and walls to the ball insane"; it is to provide the better and more sensible argument in support of your position.I have watched your videos and I deem them to be unsatisfactory as sources. In the first video, Matt and his unnamed friend claim to be speaking on behalf of all atheists when they say that it has ruined their lives. Matt goes so far as to call it "poison." It is clear and obvious that their personal experiences are clouding the famous atheist "rationalism" that you love to use as high ground whenever you are engaged in an argument. Let me tell you something: the existence of a God can be inferred, at the most basic level, from the fact that we exist. When the scientific community is confronted with an explanation for the Big Bang, they fail to come up with an answer; God is the impetus for the great celestial explosion that birthed the universe. "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light," goes the famous Bible quote (Genesis 1:3). Even if you don't believe in Jesus, or any other part of the Bible, God can still be scientifically and rationally explained.As for your point regarding the second video-the caller was clearly mistaken as to the identity of Paul's audience in Galatians 1:6-10. Believing that Paul was discussing Islam, or the Mormons, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, is ridiculous and (probably) untrue. However, you cannot use an idiosyncratic case of biblical misinterpretation to justify your entire argument that the Bible is confusing. Simply put, the Bible is not just one single document with one single purpose. Consider books like Tobit and the Song of Songs, for example. God was not directly involved in the writing of the Bible, except for instances like in Revelation when Christ said to John of Patmos: "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, 'Write what you see in a book...'" (Revelation 1:10-11). Now, as for our dispute about Bible translations: the King James Version isn't perfect, either. https://watch.pairsite.com...The King James Version makes several mistakes on a similar level as the English Standard Version, as evidenced in the website above; replacing YHWH (Yahweh) with Jehovah and "spirit" with "ghost" in reference to Christ. We are not debating the specific language used by the Bible; rather, we are debating the answers to the questions you asked in the first round in case you had forgotten. Thus, any Bible translation barring those made for children is acceptable.I am still confused as to what we are debating. Your response in the second round is written as if the first round was a completely separate debate. You went from demanding justification for God's actions in the Bible to demanding evidence for God entirely, and then prompted me for an intelligent argument.