It is probable for God to exist

C1.1) Omnipotence-Omniscence "2. Any God that knows the future is powerless to change it, and is therefore not omnipotent." As Con correctly points out, the future, by definition, is that which will definitely happen. God can't change it. Why? Not because he is not powerful enough to change events, for he can change any event he wants to. He is in the future right now, probably intervening to change events. But even his intervention itself is part of the future by definition. So this is not a proof that God's power is limited, but merely a clarification that the future is not the "possibility" of what will happen, but the "factuality" of what will happen. In effect, Con is saying that God can't change what he will do or what he will allow to happen, for any changes he does make must by definition be the things he will do or allow to happen. It is not in God's nature to fight himself over his own righteous decisions and actions, but this in no way infringes on the Biblical definition of omnipotence. So an attempt to change the future would be as contrary to God's nature as him lying, and hence, has no bearing on his omnipotence, that is, on how much "power" he has. Eternal power, or energy, does not imply a nature which facilitates any and all activities. So I don't agree that "3. Omniscience is logically incompatible with omnipotence." "6. Omnipotence is impossible if alternative outcomes can't occur for a situation." Not true, for example, God by nature cannot sin; there are no alternatives to God doing what is right without sin. Having endless power, that is, energy, no more changes God's nature into an anything goes kind of being, anymore than a gradual but infinite increase of electricity through a wire will give that wire the ability to become a boat. If we had an endless amount of vitamin C, that intake would not change our nature. So it's a fallacy on Con's part to argue that eternally vast levels of power (omnipotence) requires one to have a nature which allows one to do anything at all. C1.2) Just v. Mericful Justice is about restoring or preserving what is right, and if mercy is an aid to restoring what is right, there is no conflict between the two. I also don't agree that justice always means to give someone nothing more or less than what he deserves; rather, justices is doing what is "right" for all parties concerned. For example; let's say that a criminal deserved to die, but, this criminal had information that would save a thousand of innocent lives. He refuses to give this information unless he is granted a lesser sentence. Would killing this man be the "just" thing to do in such a situation? The law of God demands mercy, kindness, compassion, and love. (Matt 7:12) So it would be unjust by God's own law to ignore completely the plight of the innocent. The just thing, the thing in harmony with the law, would be to grant mercy unto that man for the sake of the thousand. This is why even our judicial system allows criminals to make deals when such deals turn out for the greater good. C1.3) Perfect v. Creation The word perfect means "conforming precisely to its definition and purpose." A circle is perfect if every point on the circle lies on the same plane and is equidistant from the center of the circle. The universe was created perfect for the purpose for which it was made; this does not rule out the possibility of objects in the universe being corrupted afterwards. So for example, if I build a house and someone burns it down, this burning in no way disproves the perfection of my work in building the house. Perfect doesn't mean indestructible or immutable, but simply being "right" for its intended purpose. So even an imperfect universe now doesn't disprove a perfect universe back at creation. Further, God's perfection does not obligate him to exercise all of his attributes to the full extent possible in every situation. Just as a baseball pitcher is not obligated to throw 90 mph fast balls when playing with his 2 year old son, so God may refrain from fully displaying His power or justice in a given situation if He chooses. C2: Argument from Non-belief "4. If god wants everyone to be saved by having the beliefs of set P, then everyone would have the beliefs of set P." This assumes that God always gets what he prefers. This is not the case. God's will is to save all who freely choose him. He would prefer that all men do chose him, but he doesn't force them to. God doesn't delight in punishing the wicked, but he is bound by his moral nature to do so. (Eze 18:23, 32) Because God has given us free choice, there exist the possibility of some not having belief of se P. "5. Not everyone has the beliefs of set P. 6. Therefore, god does not want everyone to be saved by having the beliefs of set P." Again, this assumes without justification that everything which happens must be God's will. Why? Just because I have the "ability" and the "desire" to go out and kill someone doesn't mean that I have to, why should it be different for God? Let's clarify, God wants everyone to freely choose him, but that won't happen because he choses not to force us to do so. Being in peer-reviewed articles doesn't prove my arguments have to be true, for anything in peer-review can be challenged, but it does show that this is a position which the scientific community can take seriously, and is based on evidence. It also means that great scientific minds have examined and critiqued this position, and were unable to find sufficent error therein to exclude it from publication. It therefore carries just as much weight as any other empiricle fact or theory of science. Out of nothing, nothing comes, therefore quantum fluctuations must come from something, for "nothing" could not fluctuate. There is an existing thing which fluctuates. Not knowing the cuase of such fluctuations is not the same thing as there not being a cause, just as when humans didn't know about gravity didn't mean there was no cause why every rock thrown up comes down and doesn't drift off into space. It's only in modern times we've been able to build machines which can detect things unseen to the eye such as viruses, atoms, electrons, radio waves, ultaviolet rays, gamma rays, etc. There may yet be other forces to be discovered from which molecules seem to appear, from which we get quantum fluctuations. Physicists seek to know the cause of spontaneously appearing objects because they, as human beings who have pre-scientific knowledge, know that nothing cannot impart being; for nothing has no potentiality whatsoever, because potentiality is a mode of being. Not knowing the cause of something is no basis at all for concluding that there isn't one. The Gospel titiles name the authors. Second-century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four Gospels to the persons that now carry their name. This suggests that they received their titles early; otherwise, there would have been a great deal of speculation as to who had written them - a variation of titles would have arisen, as had happened with the apocryphal gospels. It's harder to believe that the Gospels circulated anonymously for 60 or more years and then someone finally thought to put authors on them, and managed to get the whole church across the Roman Empire to agree. For an anonymous author to have penned a Gospel, and have it accepted as from the hand any authoritative person, would required them to present it as the work of another; concoct some story as to how it came peculiarly to be in their possession; get around the problem of why a work by such a person disappeared or was previously unknown; then get the church at large, first in his area and then throughout the Roman Empire (and would not the claimed discovery of such a document cause a sensation, and controversy?), to accept this work as genuine. How were these difficulties overcome? I'm out of space, more next round. Over to you Con.