There is A God

Con describes himself as "an atheist Muslim," which must be a contradiction in terms, for a Muslim believes in the existence of an all-powerful god named Allah, and an atheist doen't believe in the existence of this Allah, so Con seems confused about what he is. He says "i don't believe in any of the holy book's gods," so how can he be a Muslim and not believe the Quaran which teaches we were created by Allah? I'll leave that for Con to explain. Con gave a number of questions I am quite pleased to answer, none of which refutes any of my arguments presented in round 1. "1- ..can't the almighty powerful god live by himself and do anything on his own ? what did he create us for ? was he lonely ?..." No, He wasn't lonely, and He certainly can do things on His own. The fact that He made us doesn't imply that He was lonely, anymore than the fact that women have children proves that they do so because they are lonely and can't do anything on their own. God created us because He desired to share the gift of life. Aslo, in Christianity, God being a Trinity rules out Him being lonely since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit always existed before creation to give each other company (Gen 1:26; John 1:1; Matthew 28:17-20). He wanted to share companionship, and mirror this aspect of Himself by having other families around, hence a mother, father, and child (three persons again to make a family). God is a people person, a sharing, generous being, that's why He created us. "2- Did god create us to worship him?" He wants us to respect His position as Creator which involves worshipping Him. To worship God means to make Him the centre of our lives. It makes sense that only the manufacturer of a product knows how best to use it and keep it in good condition. As our manufactuer, God knows how best we should live, and so it makes sense that He should want us to always be in close relationship with Him in order to receive from Him his guidance on how we should operate. If you are a parent, don't you want your children to respect you, and obey the rules of your house while they live in it? Why shouldn't God want us to obey Him, and be close to Him? Why would that be egotistical or wrong in any way? "why will god be angry if i didn't thank him?" How would you feel if after all your love and care your children turned out to be ungreatful? Wouldn't you be disappionted in them? God doesn't "need" your gratitude anymore than the average parent "needs" the gratitude of their children, but just because they don't "need" it doesn't mean they don't "deserve" it, or that they shouldn't "want" it! When I do good deeds for my family and friends I expect them to at least show appreciation. Why do you have an issue with God expecting the same common decency from us that we expect from others? No, God doesn't send people to hell just for being ungrateful, but for rejecting Him in their hearts. God can't help being angry at sin anymore than He can help loving righteousness - its His nature. He can't change His nature anymore than a bird can decide to hate flying or a mouse decide to love cats. "Doesn't it look that way to you like god is more like a human?" We were made in His image, which includes the ability to reflect his qualities. So all those feelings like love, anger, compassion and jealousy, we have them because God has them. So it makes sense that to have a relationship with us, we would need to experience some of the same qualities God has. God doesn't "force" others to pray to him, He gives them a choice, just as you don't force your children to be obedient, you give them a choice. But they maybe punished for disrepecting you in your house. "3-... Why didn't god forgive Adam for eating the fruit?" Because he didn't repent of his sin. Why should we forgive people who are not even sorry for what they have done and continue to do it? Should a wife stay with a cheating husband who continues to cheat and isn't even sorry? Forgiveness is available to those who repent. God isn't punishing us for one man's sin, He is allowing the laws of nature to take their course, namely, a rotten tree cannot produce good fruit. To ask God to have imperfect, sinful Adam and Eve, to produce perfectly holy children, is like asking all the women with AIDS who get pregnant not to pass it on to their babies. We go to hell for our own sins, not for those of Adam. God didn't even kill Adam, Adam because broken because he sinned, just as an appliance becomes broken if you misuse it. We are not designed to live forever in sin. God didn't create an evil devil, but a righteous heavenly being. He choose to rebel. Why didn't God destroy him? He gave him oppotunity to prove his case that he raised. Had he destroyed him, you would probably accuse God of being a tryrant, as most atheist do when God destroys any human being in the Old Testament. How ironic. 4- Con has a problem with God because we are all born in different situations, but freewill is the cause of that. The alternative is to make us all mindless robots that have to obey Him so everyone would have to share everything and they wouldn't be any poor people. Would you prefer to be a mindless robot? Would you want those kind of children? Its not possible to get 100% obedience from everyone in a universe with free will during this life. And God isn't sending people to hell who did not have a fair chance to learn about Him and choose and His ways. You don't need to be a millionaire to love God, in fact, its in the poorest most suffering countries that Christianity is spreading most rapidly. Con asks "who created God," but why would God need a creator? The reason why we need a creator is not because we are complex, but because science has proven that we (and out universe) came into existence. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause of its existence. We can test that philosophy on every other thing we know of, such as cars, buildings, trees, etc. They all have some cause that facilitated and led to their origins. To even ask "who created God" assumes that Con already knows God has a beginning, which he does not! How could he, when he doesn't even believe God exists? But we do know that humans have a beginning, and Big Bang cosmology has proven that this universe began billions of years ago, so it cries out for an explanation of its beginning. God can't cry out for an explanation of His beginning until Con proves He had a beginning, but that would entail that God exists! Now, why can't we accept that this universe didn't happen just randomly without a cause? Because, as I have shown in my opening arguments, (1) Math is the product of a mind, so the mathematical structure found across the universe, especially in the design of some living things, such as this equation (n) = (r(n),_2;(n)) = (W30;n,2`0;b1;n), cries out for an intelligence that placed it there. But what kind of intellect and power would it require to make an entire universe with such features? I ask Con, and blind chance do math? Can the forces of nature come up with equations all on their own? If so, please explain to us how. I am not speculating that it must come from a mind, I know that algebra originates from intelligent beings. This alone show a powerful, super intelligent being made the universe (God). Con is yet to give a response to this, even though he had lots of space left in his opening round. I also showed the universe is finely tuned for life. Just because some of us are born in unfortunate circumstances due to the greed of humanity, not due to God, due to bad eating habits that lead to disease, not due to God, Con thinks the universe is not fine-tunes for life. This is like saying that because a a twenty story building is dirty, rat infested, and not fit for humans to live in, it therefore was not originally built by intelligent humans, but popped into being by itself, without a cause. You see, the bad condition of the world today doesn't prove that the physical structure was not erected by someone, anymore that the bad conditions of that building shows that the blueprints had no designer. Con's argument here fails. The world is damaged because of sin, but it still shows evidence of design. In fact, damaged design is still designed. Because Con can't explain how the universe got so finely tuned for life without God, he simply assumes that "we don't know," and lets leave it at that. But the problem with his argument is that the fine-tuning of the fundamental forces in our universe RULE OUT chance, which only leaves two options - physical necessity (they had to be this way), and design. But science knows of no natural law that requires the constants I mentioned in round 1 to be this way, they could have been anywhere. So this rules out physical necessity. This leaves only design. Add to this that math is the product of a mind and we most definitely have an intelligent Creator. Nor did Con reply to the facts concerning Jesus' resurrection. Unless he can give a plausible naturalistic explanation of these four facts, I am justified in accepting the supernatural explanation, that God raised Jesus from the dead. And that entails that God exists. Thank you.