God most likely does exist.

With that said I will now proceed to counter each of my opponents points. Her first one being that this universe could not be created so perfect without an outside source. Thus I present two points: 1. Who says the universe is perfect. .. .. It seems rather random to me, lots of starts and stellar bodies. 2. Even if the universe was perfect why does it need to be created by a god. In my last round I demonstrated that there are millions of alternatives for how the universe was created all lacking just as much evidence as the god alternative. This means that if the Universe was indeed created by some outside force the chances of it being a god are figuratively speaking, 1 in a million. Next my opponent goes on to argue that the odds of the earths creation, in the way it is, are extremely small. I agree the odds of the earth being created in order to sustain life are rather small. In fact lets take a look at a piece of evidence, "The Hipparcos catalogue lists a little more than 118,000 stars with 1 to 3 milliarcsec level astrometry, while the Tycho catalogue lists a little more than 1,050,000 stars. It is complete to magnitude 7.3. " - . http://en.wikipedia.org... So the Tycho catalogue has thus far documented about 1,050,000 different stars so far. This is of course not nearly as many as there are considering the fact that we can't see anywhere near the edge of the universe. But this is just stars we are talking about, this doesn't account for planets that orbit stars, small stellar bodies like pluto, astroids, and other space rocks. Literally there are billions of stellar bodies out there, and the earth is the only one that we know of that happens to have life on it. Repeat, the earth is 1 in billions of stellar bodies. I agree that the likelihood of a stellar body being created with the perfect conditions to sustain life is small. But when there are billions of stellar bodies out there, chances are one of them will have managed to get those conditions. Finally on this topic, within my opponents evidence is a quote stating, "life cannot arise from non-life. " To some extent my opponent has a bit of a point here, though I wouldn't go as far to say impossible. I'm sure at some point we will be able to create artificial life. After all life is simply a combination of the right types of atoms bonded in a correct manner. Making a single celled organism by randomly combining multiple atoms will doubtlessly have a rather low probability of success. But once again I restate that our earth is 1 in billions. So while my opponent can state that, "life cannot arise from non-life" we should attempt to remember that my opponent is advocating, "An omnipotent being can arise from nothing". Next my opponent argues that Jesus did show up in the historical records. She argues this under the premise that Jesus showed up in the bible. Thus I have my points. .. 1. The bible was created by Constantine around 300 B. C as a political agenda. The bible was a contributing factor to Constantine's rise to power. The bible was created by Constantine to be the founding document of the Christian church. This means that the books in the bible could have been edited in any way in order to fit the context for which the bible was intended. This also means that the entire bible could have been a work of complete and utter fiction. I challenge my opponent to cite a historian that lived at the time and wrote of any of the people in the bible. 2. To use the bible to prove god's existence is a fallacy commonly known as begging the question. The bible was created to be the official document of god. To prove that god exists using the bible one must first prove that the bible is correct and not a fabrication. Most Christians feel the bible was created on congruence with god's will. Thus the logic flows like this: a. God exists because the bible says so. b. The bible is a credible source because it was created by god. Circular logic. Next I would like to point out that my opponent blatantly dropped the Santa Clause analogy. Then my opponent dropped my statement saying, "Whether Jesus Christ walked the earth or not does not prove a god, simply a man. " And finally we get to the end of my speech in round 2 which my opponent has completely dropped. She has said, "It seems as though you spent a lot of time typing up the information about comparisons between people's ideas of Jesus. Was this really necessary? This is a debate on the likelihood of a God, not Jesus. (But I would love to debate anybody on it. )" However this is not what I was doing at all. This was not a comparison between people's ideas of Jesus but rather a comparison between gods that existed before Jesus. 1. Horus was an Egyptian god dating back before 3000 B. C. Horus was born on Dec. 25th to star in the east. He was born to the virgin Isis Mary, after she was impregnated by the holy ghost. Horus was adorned by three kings who had followed the star to his birth place. When Horus reached the age of twelve he became a prodigal teacher, at the age of 30 he was baptized. Horus has 12 disciples and did miracles. He was eventually betrayed by Typhon at which point he was crucified, died, and was resurrected 3 days later. Horus was created by the Egyptians before 3000 B. C. In other words, Horus, was created 3000 years before Jesus ever walked the earth. Yet if I substitute the words Horus out and put Jesus in their place no one would ever know I was talking about Horus. 2. Attis was a Greece god of about 1200 B. C. He was born of a virgin mother on Dec. 25th. He was later killed through crucification, he stayed dead for 3 days and then was resurrected. 3. Dionysus, Krishna, Mithra, and many other gods from before Jesus' birth all had similar characteristics. My point is rather simple, Jesus is a plagerization of other religions god's. Though I suppose this is the least important of my points. Anyways, I now stand open for my opponents final rebuttal.