God exists.

In my final round, I would not like to be accused of not responding conclusively. So, I will begin by laying out and answering directly the questions posed to me, and you will see that I have no fears in answering them; I fully recognize and have admitted I am not in the position to accuse my opponent of a liar, that these visions may not have happened. My argument here is to take the responsible path, to show not knowledge of the validity of these occurrences but to provide a reason for these occurrences that is more likely a statement of physiology, human experience, and the workings of our imperfect minds, rather than a statement of the validity and truth of what these experiences told my opponent. For this I must remain clear, that my role is not to deny that these things happen, but my responsibility is to show a more reasonable "reason" for these occurrences than the inherent truth of these visions.My answers:1. "Is your imagination real?" Real, yes. Reliable in regard to objective truths, absolutely not. I do not claim or adhere to such arrogance.2. "I would ask you to ask Father God to show you the Lord Jesus Christ to you in a dream." I must be honest, I was a devout, conservative Catholic for 16 years. I have asked, through perilous problems in my life with regard to family health and my own personal mental health, and I realized that the problem was not that I was not praying hard enough, it was that no one was on the other side. Like I said in the comments, I know what you're offering me. Do not assume that I do not understand, for I have been in Catholic, private school since K-5 to my Jesuit, Catholic university. I realize I'm not debating with a Catholic, but the assumption that I do not understand, or I don't want it enough or don't understand what you're offering me, is absurd and serves as a cover to the fact that you don't realize people don't want it; I don't wish to be offered an impermeable faith which tells me I have all the answers about the biggest questions, I don't wish to be a part of the scapegoating that is the "sacrifice" of Jesus Christ, effectively a vicarious redemption allowing people to put their sins on another human being. I wish to take responsibility for my own actions, and I am driving this point home because I find it to be the most influential cognitive dissonance between believers and non-believers: knowing the difference between proselytizing and intelligent debate.3. "Do dreams happen, yes or no?" Yes, I think I have made that thus far clear, if I have not I apologize, but I think anyone who read my last debate will see I do not argue for a second the existence of dreams. I simply argue that my opponent is giving dreams much more cognitive attention than they deserve. 4. "Would you choose to die for your belief, can you humbly answer that question." Simply put, for the most part, no. And that's my point, I don't have that much certainty, and don't assume that a mammalian primate like myself can claim to have that much certainty. So no, I believe in recognizing my own self interest, and find the promotion and glorification of martyrdom to be quite misplaced and unsubstantiated with regard to moral law and questions of the rightness, wrongness, or even necessity of such an act. Simply put, I have my beliefs but I would never institutionalize, in tablet form, that dying for these beliefs which others have laid out for you to accept. I am more skeptical of authority than that. On the epistemic knowledge question:My opponent has quite clearly failed to see the ultimate question of epistemology and how it relates to the question and statement of probability he is making. He is perfectly right to say that if he "guesses" that a coin will land on heads, and it does so, then he held a "true" belief. The question is much further, and my opponent's failure to recognize this is quite revealing within the larger context of this inquiry. The question is whether or not you held a justified true belief, whether your "correct" statement was simply a matter of luck. The same question has been posed to you and left unanswered: what reason do you have to believe that these dreams and visions provide not a correct belief, but a justified true belief? You have none, and anyone who recognizes this basic question will realize that the necessity and inherent need for justified true belief has not been met by my opponent in his descriptions of these dreams and visions. On my personal dreams and visions of Christ:I too have had dreams with Christ in them, but I also have had dreams with fire-breathing T-Rexs, and anyone who watched my previously cited video will see that in developing a theory of the accuracy of such mental states, one must consider all of the occurrences, meaning all of the obviously absurd and subconsciously fabricated dreams. My opponent has given absolutely no reason to believe his dreams and visions of Jesus are of any more legitimacy or relevancy to questions of objective reality, specifically the existence of god, the question that this debate was derivitive of. If I had such a dream, I would surely chalk it up to the widespread nature of Christianity within my culture and the overall tendency of individuals to dream of things related to the world and environment they live in, rather than the innate truth in the visions I have seen. I have seen a pink elephant or two in my time, under the influence of not-entirely-healthy substances, as well as within my dreams and past night-terrors, but I have seen no reason to establish this as a relevant epistemic source of truth, and especially not if properly asked to establish justified, true belief.On the Bible and it's overall use:I do not wish to repeat myself overtly, but I made it clear that any authority or evidence drawn from the Bible must be backed up by convincing and clear reason to believe that specific text with relation to the historical, scientific, or philosophical claims the text makes. I honestly believe that no such evidence was provided, at least not in a serious and convincing amount, and thus the countless Biblical quotes that are often lacking in historical and literary analysis and/or criticism are entirely irrelevant, for no sufficient argument was made to establish the validity of such quotes within the confines of this debate. A skilled and passionate atheist who is quite hung up on these details, and anyone who has read the Bible, front to back, as I have, will note that the Israeli conquests and "accomplishments" that are described have a much richer and more revealing history, with the tribe being responsible for mass genocide, widespread rape, gruesome infanticide, all warranted from the deity. This is historical semantics at this point, but I ask anyone reading to at least acknowledge that the context of many of these texts provide a much more convincing reason to think that anything expressed in such a text is truly marked by the "indelible stamp of our lowly origin," as Darwin would have put it. What my opponent's argument ultimate comes down to:1. I had visions and dreams of Jesus Christ.2. These visions seemed real to me.3. These visions are reason enough for me to believe.4. Because these are reason enough for me to believe, they are reason enough for you to believe.I will ask my readers to evaluate this argument, not only for its validity and consistence with the arguments set forth by my opponent, but for the quality of its persuasion. If you were set with a list of things people have dreamt about and had visions of, I find it reasonably sensible to conclude you would be faced with choosing between the most absurd and incoherent narratives you can imagine, and no amount of evidence provided by my opponent gives reason to believe his particular visions of a subject very relevant to him during his waking hours are any more of an indication of objective reality as it exists than my childhood nightmares of a fire-breathing T-Rex.