Con (Theist) Will Not Fulfill His/Her Burden of Proof in Establishing The Existence Of God

Final Rebuttals Con continues to state that the standing sun was recorded by other cultures as well, but has yet to provide any reliable sources. If this was indeed true, there should be no problem whatsoever in finding any respectable astronomers who support this view. All of the cultures which actually studied the stars in the same time period have not shown any records of this event. It is irritating that Con or anyone else should believe in such a claim with such little evidence. Con should be more honest in this respect and call it faith. It is not derived from ANY respectable scientific analysis, the standing sun miracle would cause havoc to our entire planet. It violates the principle of conservation of angular momentum. Furthermore, if the Earth stopped rotating then the moon would snap out of Earth’s orbit and be propelled at some angle in space. The water of the ocean has momentum, such that it would overflow all eastern coasts with huge tidal waves. The atmosphere itself has momentum and so the air speed would be moving at a devastating speed. We all have momentum at this very second and if Earth were to suddenly stop rotating, then we would all be propelled from wherever we are at 1,000 mph! It is ridiculous to claim this miracle actually occurred and it delegitimizes the reliability of the Torah as a source of true stories. Pretty much every miracle in the Torah, has no scientific basis and to this day has never been demonstrated or given the respect of any scientific consensus. It is therefore irrational and unsupported to believe that 2.5 million people were at Mount Sinai, and questionable to whether the event ever happened in the first place. I have shown Con’s constant attempts to reconcile these miracles as unsupported throughout this debate, and ask that she hold up her true colors. Her position is not evidence-based it is faith based, and faith is nothing more than gullibility. Sources: 1) http://astrobob.areavoices.com... 2) http://www.spaceanswers.com... 3) http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov... Immorality of the Torah’s God 1) Genocide: Con cites another passage where God commands the Israelis to ask for peace before doing battle. However, this contradicts the scripture which I posted that tells them to utterly destroy them. Obviously these passages have a ridiculously wide range of interpretations, so much so that one could justify any atrocity or any good doing with the same scripture. It seems to be a stupid thing in itself for a God to set up such an arrangement of vastly differing interpretations. Regardless, if the Israelites actually asked for peace first or not, they still have justified the killing of the innocent woman and children which is immoral for any God to command. 2) Slavery: The levels to which religious apologetics try to reconcile immorality in the Torah is immoral in itself. They constantly try to make it seem as if slavery wasn’t so bad, regardless of how clear the scriptures are about human property. As I predicted Con’s source claims that slaves weren’t REALLY slaves, they were more like indentured servants. At the bottom-line we all know historically that slaves were forcibly subdued by the Israelites with a direct and clear logical pathway of justification from their Torah. If a God were to be truly omnibenevolent he could advocate just once, that slavery (human property) is forbidden but this never occurs. 3) Human Sacrifice: Ok… God commands Abraham to kill his son, and then not kill his son? If that is the case, then God is inconsistent. What is the point to all of these parables that leave interpretation up in air. Why does God not just plainly and clearly state that human sacrifice is bad?! In the end, Abraham killed his son as a test of his faith and I still do not see any reason for a moral and all-powerful God to allow such immoral barbarism. 4) Rape: Regardless of whatever sources of far-off interpretation in the Talmud that the woman is not obligated to marry the rapist, this is a moot rebuttal. It is crystal clear from the passage I have given that many rapists could rape a woman, and use the Torah as their validation for then subduing her into marriage. If any other passage says otherwise than the Torah is, yet again, inconsistent. Any moral teaching that can be excavated from such a plethora of immorality seems to me to be something no Jew or Rabbi should be proud of. No matter how you slice this cake, it is inconceivable that the Torah was made by an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent God. The entire morality argument is explained most eloquently by Christopher Hitchens: “Is it too modern to notice that there is nothing [in the ten commandments] about the protection of children from cruelty, nothing about rape, nothing about slavery, and nothing about genocide? Or is it too exactingly “in context” to notice that some of these very offenses are about to be positively recommended?” The scientific community is the single most consistent and reliable group of individuals the human species has to offer. They are the ones to uncover new truths and discoveries of our Universe through a rigorous process of careful experimentation, analytical mechanisms, and peer-review. Undermining their integrity is silly and a weak rebuttal which only portrays Con’s shortcomings in finding but ONE consensus on any supernatural event to have ever been claimed. I know science hasn’t been around forever, but clearly hundreds of years have gone by with absolutely zero pieces of reliable evidence for a miracle or even one person demonstrating one. I think by now my previously outlined arguments/rebuttals as well as Con’s arguments/rebuttals regarding the Kuzari principle is like beating a dead horse. Regardless of Con’s continued assertions that the principle is verifiable, I have shown that it is not and Con gives no good reason to challenge it. I have also explained how numerous times, Con is make a case of special pleading for her Sinai event, while not accepting Jesus’ resurrection regardless that both are stories of mass revelation. Con says Paul may have lied, I say the writer of the Sinai passage may have lied; we are still in same exact predicament. My other argument’s regarding the ridiculously low probability of any supernatural event to ever occur still stands. Ockham’s razor is forever in support of cutting out any supernatural assumptions. I would therefore just like to extend my previous arguments to keep the reading light for the audience. I would like to thank Con for her excellence in keeping the debate lively but alas the debate has finally come to an end. My resolution still holds firm, Con has not fulfilled her burden of proof in establishing the existence of a God.