Biblical God exists.

This round ill address his rebuttal and further emphasis my standing for each point, then rebuttal his three points about God. RE: Faithfulness of Disciples There is, however, a rather large gap between conviction and truth- they are not the same. My original argument wasn't dogmatically indicating death for beliefs constitutes evidence to be true. So I agree with your comments above, however id like to expand on a few points. Just as gaps between conviction and truth are obvious - similarly, assuming to close the gap between conviction and fairy tale is obvious, unless proven. Such as: was Muhammad a prophet? History cannot answer this, likewise we cannot assume the disciples testimony is false unless proven. To conclude these historical events fall short of fact or proof, is simply pointing towards histories giant hole - that's; history cannot prove much at all, including known events. In light of history's struggle for proof, it's clear that historical deaths with such conviction cannot be sifted into fact or false so easily. If so, we must throw large portions of history. Disciples died holding onto their conviction, as did many followers. Roman scribes recorded details and clear testimony from Christians. These historical events confirm their conviction, and reasons. Unless it's proven they believed a lie, or held doctrines contrary to Jesus the risen Lord, we can accept their testimony. Quote Enaidealukal: e.g. at one point in time humans had no evidence for the existence of atoms; this absence of evidence was due to our lack of technology, not because atoms didn't exist. Similarly, because we're unable to comprehend a miracle, doesn't exclude the historical testimony. From this, no absolute rejection or affirmation is attainable - however the surrounding testimony of the resurrection must be weighed. If Jesus' claims X and something similar to X occurs, we can conclude it's possible. Which is exactly what you've pointed out by saying: if I did drive to Disneyland, there must necessarily be a good deal more miles on my odometer now than there was previously. If there is not, it is not possible that I drove to Disneyland. Reliability of the Gospels Pro has made are highly dubious; he claims that the Gospels agree with each other "95 percent of the time" That wasn't my claim. The historical records of each gospel are 95% accurate within each book. I didn't claim all gospels are 95% accurate with each other. Ill need to read links supporting your other statements. You must understand I wont accept opinions or purely just your word since we're talking about scholars. This Round is my last, so I'm unsure what approach ill take. Since I cannot cross check your comments, I can only consider them. But I cannot debate scholars opinions without real links, so I'm stuck. RE: Explosion of Christianity *Id like to re-address that Roman growth is a partial topic, rather the explosion of the faith as a whole is primary. Roman culture isn't the cause for explosion, so it's not the pivotal point for this topic. * Christianity rose with such conviction, testimony and witness from day 1. Day 1, or explosion is topic for discussion. Day 1 explosion from the Empty Tomb is one of many, however it's unfair introducing new topics on my last round. Though I've made it clear eye witnesses is another case for the explosion, which we're still discussing. Round 2 post from Enaidealukal. In the previous round I mentioned several crucial historical factors that led to the proliferation of Christianity; Pro has objected to one of these factors in particular, but importantly, did not respond to my claim that historical circumstance provide an adequate explanation for the popularity of Christianity in general. Circumstance alone is theory of what's current, however the explosion my primary point. Managing to explain what current is one aspect yes, but how it began is another. Example, Evolution - Origins of Life. Although I didn't address all three in great detail, I did however link all three into what I saw them as. ill explain the other two more. the fact that Christianity piggy-backed on and associated itself with an existing religion (Judaism)Jewish believers clashed with Christianity, and still does, but if we take Islam for example who tired the same tactic, Islam failed. "St. John's opinion, its failure to live up to even the most basic scrutiny." http://en.wikipedia.org... It was only by the sword did Christians and Jew accept. Likewise Mormons and Jehovah's witness piggy backed off Christianity, however they're expansion isn't anywhere near Christianity. If we take 20% of 100,000 Christians in 2013 and they join a cult, the cult would be 20,000. But if we took 20% from Judaism at 30AD, the numbers alone couldn't account for the spread of the faith. 20% from a minority religion is 20% of nothing. The fact that Christianity made spreading "the Word" a central point *Warning* -Using an example for direct reference, which may appear offensive. Hopefully fellow DDO understand it's use without intention to offend. Employment of spreading the faith wasn't easy, adventurous, or favourable as we might think. Imagine travelling through Iraq 2013 with the message Muhammad was a homosexual prostitute who wore woman's cloths. I wonder how many would raise their hand to preach this in market squares? Truth is, you'd die slowly and painfully, just like Christians did. Its up to Enaidealukal to prove circumstances effected their choice of converting and walking into suicidal painful death. Rebuttal points A Moral World Order: Given that the Bible describes God as being good, merciful and just, and as being the divine creator and intervene, we would expect a moral world order to exist... With all due respect you haven't provided links to support the idea God enforces a moral world order. Noah's flood shows God's in control -over- man, not in control -of- man. The flood shows mankind out of control, but God is controlling the system -over- man. The God you depict which we'd see evidence of a "moral world order" indicates a God of robots. If the world was "moral world order" we'd be unable to commit evil, since we're all controlled by God who enforces "moral world order." Similar to trannical rule. However God has raised men for specific times, such as Pharaoh. God says "I raised you up for a time such as this, and harden your heart." But God tells us why He did this... "So my glory shall be seen." This was so Jews would believe and see. http://www.biblegateway.com... Fulfilled Prophecies: If there is a God who knows everything then we should expect some of the many prophecies in the Bible to come true- however Numerous have, although seem broad by definition, are actually very unlikely. http://www.goodnewsdispatch.org... Since you've used the bible itself as material, it's fitting I use material back to remain consistent. Reading Daniel shows direct names of kings, such as Greece invading Persia etc. By direct names the broad theory is reduced. However this doesn't stop criticism of the text itself. However if we continue like this, we'll be battling historians forevermore. Miracles:...It is highly curious to suppose that Christ actually rose from the dead, and was observed by many people- all of whom failed to ever record what they saw; we would expect the opposite, Id expect anyone stumbling over twelve identical writings from all disciples writing word for word the same account, they'd use equal logic to conclude; a desperate attempt to manufacture a lie. But a more realistic answer to why numerous didn't record their accounts is factored by culture, traditions and money. Recollection was essential for daily life, since scrap paper for doodling while on the phone would cost a months wage. Their paper and writing is similar to our modern art, so it's clearly understood why five hundred people didn't record their testimony.