God probably exists

Response Part 1: I don’t think you understand, this is not a defensive point. I am explaining the origin of Christianity. Also, as I am in a natural position I am not obliged to present any points, however, I enjoy showing all of the inconsistencies of the bible, and ultimately Christianity. Response to Part 2: As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:”. I did not do as you claimed and said “God=Religion=Christianity” but instead I read the preface and saw that it says “This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.” So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed. Well as I am sure you will see in the next section who has been defining words. Response to Transition: (“You mentioned religion, I proved your claim wrong USING A RELIGION. Your mistake, not mine, you can"t just infer and pretend religion means "Christianity" you could just say what you mean. But you didn"t you hoped your fallacy of composition would go unnoticed, it didn"t, your mistake. Next time say what you mean and stick to your own debate topic!”) – Your claim in Part 4 As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:”. I did not do as you claimed and said “God=Religion=Christianity” but instead I read the preface and saw that it says “This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.” So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed. Response to Part 1: I used YOUR sources to define religion when you fumbled around and &%*%ed it up. Again, a neverending fallacy of composition is NOT ACCEPTABLE. You cannot by any arguable or logical claim pretend Christianity represents religion, yet you did repeatedly and further made really only points about RELIGION unrelated to the debate topic" Don Quixote Arguments.”)”) – Your whole response to part 1 1. (“" from http://dictionary.reference.com......)”) – Your source used for those terms, as you stated (“All terms and definitions are influenced by or excerpted from the American Heritage Dictionary, the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, and the Oxford Dictionary.”) – From the preface If you ask me, and any competent person, they will tell you that dictionary.com is not: the American Heritage Dictionary, the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy or the Oxford Dictionary. (“I used YOUR sources to define religion”) – Your claim in part 4 (“you fumbled around and &%*%ed it up.”) – Your claim in part 4 I appreciate that you could deduce this from your overflowing river of knowledge. If this time you did not read what I said in isolation you may be able to conceive the idea that it was not me who did such a thing J. Also on that, I am glad to that your religious beliefs equip you with such manners. (“4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere”) – Part 4 of the rules (“11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss”) – Part 11 of the rules 2. (“You cannot by any arguable or logical claim pretend Christianity represents religion, yet you did repeatedly and further made really only points about RELIGION unrelated to the debate topic" Don Quixote Arguments.”) – another bit of your argument for this point As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:”. I did not do as you claimed and said “God=Religion=Christianity” but instead I read the preface and saw that it says “This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.” So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed. Response to Part 2: Well as far as you have shown, he does not fit the definition so that is a bit silly to mention. What do you mean about this lack of free will? You were meant to be arguing against my point, my point had nothing to do with free-will. Either way, I showed you that your misleading experiment was wrong and meaningless, thus we could not tell if there was free will or not. Neither does predetermines suggest much about the Christian god. (“Actually if you keep up with Quantum Mechanics, predeterminism contradicts "natural selection" and much of evolution. It suggests that it was all programmed and all in there, from the singularity (big bang) forward-this is related to Sam Harris" argument about free will. That"s his point (and mine) that it DOESN"T EXIST, precisely because of DNA".”) – Part 3 (“This debate is not about evolution, no refutation necessary.”) – Part 4 Once again, contradicting yourself. Are you not going to address the point that you made about evolution does not explain the beginning of the universe? It seems to me that you had not mentioned that again… I wonder if you admit that that was wrong. PM me and let me know. Response to Part 3: (“bible means "library."”) – Your rebuttal “(Bible means "THE BOOKS" it DOES mean library”) – your defence Well that must be awkward. (“There"s only one religion with a "bible"”) – Your rebuttal, 1st line (“SOME religions have a group of books compiled to make a library or "bible."“) – Your rebuttal 3rd line Hmmmmm, there it is again. Well maybe if you don’t believe what I say you might believe what you said. You cannot put it on me that I am making this sort of stuff up, just look, you contradict yourself within the first 3 lines of this point! As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:”. I did not do as you claimed and said “God=Religion=Christianity” but instead I read the preface and saw that it says “This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.” So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed. Response to Part 4: As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:”. I did not do as you claimed and said “God=Religion=Christianity” but instead I read the preface and saw that it says “This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.” So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed. /// I am glad to have had this debate with you. Unfortunately your violation of rules alone will (should) lead to my win. I appreciate your points and am honoured to have been the one who made you think of these arguments. Perhaps next debate you will change your arguments so that you have a better chance of winning. If indeed you would like me to argue against you beliefs in particular just do as I said in the preface (hope you have since read it). “This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.” – Preface Thanks.