God Exists Only in the Minds of His Followers

I'll explain my (lack of) spirituality in a comment. Let's continue... 1. God exists 1.1 Descartes Argument Con's new counter: A perfect thing would be perfectly willing to make everything perfect True. But it might have legitimate reasons not to. If we take perfection to be something unlimited, then by definition it cannot be limited and therefore cannot be defined (to define means to limit). So God might want to limit some things to create new things, by limiting the perfect. The creation of new things may be desirable to a perfect being. Once again, voters, note that this is simply an attempt by my opponent to boss God around and tell it what it should have done. In fact, my opponent's limited mind, with no comprehension of a perfect mind, is really just saying wild guesses. His are guesses, but mine are based upon what actually happened and therefore we know to be the truth. And the truth is not incompatible with perfection. 1.2 Lewis Argument Con's re-hashed counter: My opponent presupposes that natural laws have a purpose No I don't. My argument specifically presupposes that natural laws DON'T have a purpose. The common way to write "not on purpose" is "by accident.” It is not a strawman to say that laws either have a purpose or they don't, especially if they lead to a valid conclusion. My opponent also appeals to his "God must follow the laws of existence" line here. No he doesn't. God defines the laws of existence. If I got to define the rules of chess, need I play by the rules? No. I'd be able to do anything I want. I'd just make up a new rule to cover for it. 1.3 Pascal Argument Con's new counter: Pascal's wager does not make a TRUE believer How do you know? It is foolish to lump all people converted by one argument into the true believers category and another into the false believers category. I’ve made this point before. Again, my opponent is still putting himself in God's mind. Next my opponent criticised my "love and fear" analysis. First, I do not claim to speak for God, I am simply providing a way in which a perfect being might justifiably justify their actions. Second, my opponent continually confuses terror and fear, which is not the same thing. Third, my opponent claims God is not above moral standards. Wrong. See my chess analysis above. Fourth, the emotional appeal concerning the moral sense of a child. The validity of moral claims is based upon whether we can rule out the alternative. Without a certain God giving us morality, we cannot rule out the alternative. Therefore without God, there are no moral claims. Therefore without God, there is no morality. 1.4 Kant Argument Con's new counter: Why are 93% of surveyed scientists atheist? I think you'll find that among people that actually study the Bible (ie theologians) the number of atheists is much, much lower. Con's other new counter: Logic would come from the evolution of intelligence But that doesn't prove logical truths. One cannot use intelligence to prove logic as intelligence, under your model, would presuppose some degree of logic. It would be arguing in a circle. But logic can be proven under my alternative model, and that's God. Why? Because God exists outside the scope of logic - God "sets the rules" once again. Therefore it does not violate the "arguing in a circle" problem with your model. 2. Bible is Accurate 2.1 Possible Inaccuracy 2.1.1 Great Flood Con's counter: Read science texts If you want a website of scientists who support the theory, look no further than carm.org, under the research pages. The reason it isn't mentioned in science texts is that secular scientists rarely investigate biblical claims. 2.1.2 Adam and Eve Con's counter: read my sources I will not respond to arguments you do not make, so if you need to blow your top, so be it. I stand by everything I said. 2.1.3 Age of the Earth Your citation is but one of many interpretations. There is even some significant biblical evidence for old-Earth creationism, and some movements that claim the creation of man is the same as the creation of spirit. The point is that the Bible does not clearly state the age of the Earth. Given this fact, all we can do is interpret the scripture and extrapolate from it. However, there is no way of gauging the accuracy of this extrapolation. For this reason, none of the major churches have an official stance on the matter. And so I did not lie. 2.2 Historical Accuracy 2.2.1 Jesus Con's case: No records of Jesus' miracles in secular texts Actually, you'll find that ALL of the secular texts I cited make reference to the miracles. Con's other case: No records of Jesus' crucifixion in secular texts About 50 years after the death of Jesus, the temple at Jerusalem was burnt to the ground by the Romans. Josephus describes how all of the temple records were destroyed. 2.2.2 Israel Narrative Con's case: "completely irrelevant to an ontological argument" Errm ... yip! I'm confused because I wasn't making an ontological argument. 2.3 Scientific Accuracy 2.3.1 Big bang All I said was that the Bible says "In the beginning." This was in marked contrast to the earlier atheist position "There was no beginning." If you don't call creating space-time in one day a "rapid expansion," then I don't know what will satisfy you. 2.3.2 Universe like a tent The boundary is in fact a four-dimensional (plus time) shape. A shape which, by the way, is impossible to model because scientists are not yet certain where the edge of the universe is. 2.3.3 Space is a vacuum I never said it was a perfect vacuum, and neither did the bible. But there is so little there that in common parlance it is safe to call it a vacuum, or to say there is no matter. It could have said "Aside from one atom of hydrogen per square kilometer, the space above the world is empty." But as the Hebrews had no word for hydrogen or atom, and as the effect of that one atom is negligible, it is safe to ignore it. God conveyed the accurate idea to people. 2.3.4 Air has weight If scientists DIDN'T just dismiss this verse as mumbo-jumbo we would have discovered this important fact much sooner. 2.3.5 Starlight "A splendor all its own" actually is equivalent to "every star has a unique splendor" and therefore "every star is unique." 2.3.6 Grammar criticism Don't jump to conclusions about knowledge based on sentence construction. Base it upon what is actually written. It says the sun/stars each have a unique splendor. It said the moon has a unique splendor. This is all true. Nothing more to be read in to it. 2.3.7 Ocean Springs I'm not using semantics. I'm using the actual word of God. Make a proper counterargument. 2.3.8 Dinosaurs Not saved from Noah's flood as a giant meteor had already killed them. I thought you scientists already knew that? 2.3.9 Cave men Men once lived in caves. They lived alongside other people who had bone disease. Around the 1950s people thought it would be funny to connect them with evolution and call them Neanderthals. The fraud was eventually discovered some decades later. They could have simply read a bible to see that the Neanderthals did not exist. 3. Bible is Moral 3.1 OK to kill kids? Yes, for God it is. God can kill adults too. For people it is immoral, but God has power over all things - including moral power. 3.2 OK to kill cursers? Yes. Indeed, your quote tells us that God surely will. It does not say "Kill swearers," but says "Swearers surely will be killed [by God]." What is so nonsensical about that? 3.3 OK to prize plunder? Yes. Treasure it, because it is a gift of God. Put aside your wild interpretation and just agree with both the Jewish and the Christian authorities who would disagree with you. 3.4 OK to insult God? (BONUS ROUND!!!) No. If you try to show up God with your mocks, wait until God mocks you after you die. So, where is the wrong message in that? 4. The Invisible Pink Unicorn Well, I cannot "disprove" the IPU, but I can "prove" God. My proofs above don't work for the IPU!