God Exists Only in the Minds of His Followers

First, I'm disgusted that my opponent has resorted to ad hominum attacks because he "felt like it." He made two such attacks, once at the start, and once in 3.4. Second, I find it equally rude that my opponent keeps changing his argument, even unto the final round, and bringing up new arguments, multiple times. I will answer them, but with a tinge of sadness in my heart. I said at the start of this debate that I would prove three things: God's existence, the existence of historical claims in the bible, the existence of scientific claims in the bible, and the goodness of the bible as a source of morality. 1. God exists Since the start of this debate, my opponent has been trying to put himself in the mind of God, and has used that as a counter argument on all four of my arguments. Now in the final round he accuses me of putting myself in the mind of God (1.1). I have never done such a thing. I have never claimed anything about God's nature that God has not told us himself through his holy scripture. On the Lewis argument, even to the final round, my opponent misrepresents the meaning of the word "accident," claiming that thinking is neither an accident nor on purpose - which, as I have already demonstrated, is impossible. On the Kant argument, my opponent has failed to show an absolute source for logic, other than the subjective source of our own thinking, inherited through genetics. If the only thing that's logical is our thinking, we can't prove logic. That's arguing in a circle. I told you that in round two, and my opponent refused to counter my case. My opponent has conceded that Pascal argument as proof that God exists. He fails to acknowledge my round four counter argument saying that it cannot be seen in isolation. As for the Descartes argument, my opponent has no rebuttal other than to put himself in God's head again. 2. Biblical accuracy I told my opponent to tell us where the bible was inaccurate. He gave four points, one of which was so totally irrelevant and stupid that we both dropped it (2.1.4). I then gave analysis as to why the bible is right on all these counts. Then my opponent gave analysis that my analysis had a Christian bias. Why? Because it didn't have a non-religious (secular) bias! Science is about getting the unbiased truth. This means my sources are valid. In this last round, my opponent has brought up the problem of inbreeding. First, Noah brought along his whole family, including his sons and their wives, so that's quite a population to repopulate from. Second, as for Adam and Eve, Genesis doesn't say Abel was the second-born, only that he was a second son. Maybe Eve had 1000 daughters. We just don't know, so stop assuming. Finally, my opponent claims the age of the Earth is an important fact. This is really him putting himself in God's mind again, bossing him around, telling him what to write in the Bible. Personally, I'd quite like it if the Bible said the winning lotto numbers, but I have no authority to say that to God. At the end of this debate, my opponent has failed to meet this aspect of his burden of proof. I gave examples of both valid historical and scientific claims by the Bible. My opponent has conceded (2.2.2) that a third of the Bible is error-free history. My opponent dismisses the Jesus narrative because it concerns religion and is unverifiable. Socrates' trial is unverifiable and written by only one author instead of four, yet accepted by most secular writers, so I'm guessing that a religious text, according to my opponent, can never make a valid claim because it is religious. This is yet another example of a tautology in my opponent's argument. Other than that my opponent was unable to counter the Bible's historical claims. He found not one ancient source that contradicted the Bible in any way. The scientific claims my opponent got more contentious over. He criticised the Bible for mentioning God alongside scientific claims (2.3.1 and 2.3.9 - of course, there is nothing scientifically invalid about the claim itself), for making a unconfirmed hypothesis (2.3.2 and 2.3.4 - I never said the Bible DID science, only that it agreed with it), and for the semantics of valid conclusions (2.3.3). He claims that picking out a claim from the Bible, however valid, does not prove the validity of the bible scientifically (2.3.5 and 2.3.7 - of course, this is just a distraction from the fact that my opponent cannot meet his burden of proof!). Finally he tries to win using un-backed-up claims (mirror images of beauty are not beautiful in 2.3.6) and ignoring my argument completely (2.3.8 - just remember what I said in round one to prove wrong my opponent's analysis here!). He adds a cunning last-round meteor shower problem, but that is a total strawman as it has nothing to do with the validity of any particular bible claim. So despite spending the vast majority of his letter count on this section, it appears that his efforts to disprove bible science remain futile. 3. Morality I gave good analysis in round one as to why the bible is morally OK. My opponent chose to ignore that analysis and give his misguided interpretation of some passages concerning the moral nature of God, which he initially misapplied to humans. I answered this analysis with my analysis that God is above morality. In the last round, my opponent tried to salvage this case (3.2) by claiming confirmation bias. This would only be true if Israelites really DID kill rebellious kids, which, knowing kids, would be everyone. As it so happens, the Israelite tribe did not die out within one generation, so it seems my interpretation is totally correct and there is no confirmation bias. Next he accuses God of being a "murdering scumbag." That's a very nice subjective interpretation. Not like it carries any credence whatsoever. Next he claims that his interpretation is better than that of the rabbis and priests (3.3.3 and 3.3.4). He never told us why, and it's too late now. Prima face, the rabbis should know their own book better than some random guy on DDO. He has failed on all of these counts. Finally, having already created a bonus round last round, my opponent brings forth the super-bonus round of slavery. In ancient Israel, slavery had a different meaning than it did today (http://christianthinktank.com...). "Slaves" did not mean "hard laborers," like we today would expect. "Slave" was a job, something usually contracted in to, although they were occasionally brought by foreign traders (http://www.allaboutworldview.org...). Keeping a slave was OK so long as they were well treated (see the Epistle to Philemon). Today, people remain enslaved, for example, bonded to work for banks (debt slavery). While other forms of slavery are followed to a lesser degree today, the ancient form of slavery is actually widely accepted today and pretty much never a moral issue. Definitely not cool is slave trading (1 Timothy 1:8-10) or slave collecting (Exodus 21:16). Israelites were forbidden from those evil activities, and rightly so. The slave trade of the 1700s would definitely not be allowed. Therefore this argument doesn't stack up either. 4. IPU Again, drop it. This argument is a fallacious extension from argument one and has no bearing on the present debate. My opponent has failed to fulfill his burden of proof and rebut mine. Vote Con. Amen.