Resolved: The Christian God, as depicted in the Bible, does not exist.

Thanks for providing your argument, Mister_Man. In my argument I will go through Pro's points and show various flaws in it. Since Pro has accepted that the burden of proof is 100% on him, this is enough to win this debate. Pro states: "But, does a divine creator pertaining specifically to Christianity exist? We have to understand what would make the "God" we discovered to be the Christian God. Well, the main thing Christians (or religious people in general) tend to go on would be the miracles in their holy books. If a divine creator exists, that means the miracles, pertaining to a divine creator, in the Bible are all true. It also means miracles, pertaining to a divine creator of other religions, are also true." If a certain god exists and its scripture is true then all miracles described in the scripture must also be true. However this does not mean that any other miracles described in other religions scripture are true. This is only logically sound if the miracles are the same. Then, obviously, they are also true in other religions. However miracles being true does not mean that a specific god exists since the miracles themselves do not point to a specific god and therefore can not be attributed. In the next paragraph Pro lists Bible citations to proof that the Christian god created everything, does not lie and is the only god, which I all accept. Then Pro references sources from Islam and Sikhism that claim the same for their gods. Since this argument is about the existence of the Christian god according to Christian scripture and there is nothing in Christian scripture that suggests that any of those other sources are divine and true, I therefore reject them. Then Pro continues to construct a contradiction based on the unproven premises that multiple gods exist, none of them are lying and all of them claiming to be the only one. In step 2, Pro claims that "each religion is clear that it is not the same God each religion is worshiping". At least for the god of Islam, Allah, this is not so clear. One could argue that Allah is the same god as the Christian god, JHWH, (the "abrahamic god") but then there still is only one god with a true holy book and a false one which does not lead to any contradiction. Step 3 assumes that all "holy books" must be true if the respective gods exist. This clearly is not true as anyone can make up a false holy book based on another religion's god. Pro also states "If God does not lie, the newly discovered divine, all powerful, knowledgeable etc. creator of all would not pertain to a specific religion, and in this case, Christianity, as each religion says the divine creator strictly belongs to their religion and their religion alone." This is wrong, the Bible does not claim that the Christian god "strictly belongs to their religion and their religion alone". Given that the new testament splits Christianity from Judaism any such claim in the Bible would be ridiculous. The Bible only claims that it depicts the one any only god correctly and in turn all other scripture that depicts a god differently must be wrong. Pro continues: "God does not lie, and considering the Bible is the word of God, he would have lied, because he would "exist" in nearly every religion (more than just Christianity to say the least)." Since the existence of a god is not based on scripture describing him, the existence of separate scripture describing the same god differently does not mean that two different gods exist, it just means that one scripture got it wrong. Alternately the mere existence of scripture depicting a different god does not in any way mean that this god actually exists. By arguing this way, Pro directly argues against its own position ("The Christian God, as depicted in the Bible, does not exist."). Pro's summary starts with "If a divine creator existed, each religion would claim he was theirs. This would be impossible as each religion claims their God is the only God, and that their God does not lie.". This is totally possible when all but one claims are wrong. In summary, Pro's argument is based on the false assumption that claiming something makes it true. In specific, claiming that some gods exist does not make them exist. Also, such claims are not tied together so that they are either all true or all false because they are similar in nature. If one such claim can be disproved, this can not be generalized to other god claims. It is absolutely possible that one claim is true and all the others are false. For this argument the true claim can be that the Christian god as depicted in the Bible exists. Pro failed to provide a conclusive argument to support his claim and as he accepted to bear the burden of proof, I rest my case.