The Christian God is the likeliest of all the gods from thoughout time.

I have to out my source at the top, I apologize for this, but my phone won't scroll down past a certain amount of characters. This is also why I have to put the last couple lines of my final argument in the comments. 1. http://www.truthbeknown.com... 1. & 2. The reason His claim to perfection makes Him less believable is simple. When choosing between two options with no real evidence to separate them, the one that takes less of a stretch of the imagination is more believable. I really don't understand why Pro can't grasp that an impossible claim like ultimate perfection is less believable than a claim of imperfection. In the analogy, the reason the guy who says he works at fast food is more believable is because even though it is not impossible for a billionaire to wear Walmart clothes, it is less likely for the fact that expensive clothes are better than normal ones and those that can afford them usually wear them. 3. It isn't a strawman fallacy. No matter how Pro tries to justify God's cruel "justice system", it is a system in which a child rapist can go to heaven for simply asking for forgiveness and a generally good person can burn for eternity for not worshipping right god. Not to mention the fact that the whole Christian theology is based on blackmail. When you blackmail someone, you threaten to do something to someone if they don't follow your instructions. God says worship Him or burn for eternity. There is no perfection there. 4. If Pro is talking specifically about supernatural creation, then he cannot claim with certainty that a being can only create something less than themselves. I can just as easily say that a perfect being cannot create anything less than perfect because to do so would go against the nature of perfection. To be perfect means everything you do is perfect. Therefore by the transitive property anything created by a perfect being must itself be perfect. 5. My argument cannot be non sequitur because the conclusion that God's claim to perfection makes Him less believable comes from the premise put forth in point 4. 7. Pro can try to explain why this verse left out that and try to twist the facts to suit his cause, but he can't change the fact that there are clear contradictions. Since the only point of this argument is to disprove Pro's claim that the bible speaks in perfect unity, I will only offer some that I think are unarguable. Pro never addressed how unlikely it is that something as major as an earthquake or angelic descention would have only been mentioned in 1 of 4 books. These are major events, and if 3 of 4 just ignored them, then God chose some crappy writers. Also, if contradictions that aren't omissions, then here you go. Mark 16:5 says they saw someone sitting inside the tomb, but Luke and John said it was empty. There is a singular pronoun. John 20:2 says "then she runneth". As to Mark 16, I have already said that John is the only account that claims she was alone. That is part of the contradiction. The only way I am arguing a strawman fallacy is if there are no contradictions, and I have made it clear that their are. I cited the quote in the comments section. Pro claims that there is historical evidence of Jesus, but this is not true. In fact, there is not even a mention of Jesus outside of the bible. The only major writing Christians can even refer to is that of Josephus, and that text has been shown to be fraudulent (1). If someone went around raising the dead, turning water into wine, walking on water, etc; then every historian and record keeper in the area would be writing about him. Surely someone outside of God's chosen writers would have noticed. 8. I don't see how having things in common with other religions help the case for Christianity. If two things have similar stories, and one has been around for thousands of years longer, which one is more likely to jave