IN MY OPINION, God does not exist.

Reminder of the Topic of the DebateSides of the debate:Pro- In my mind, God doesn't exist.Me- In my mind, God does exist.I am arguing against Pro's conception of nontheism. I am not going after all atheistic claims, I am only going after what he presents.Likewise, Pro is not arguing against mainstream Christianity. That is not the debate he requested. He is arguing against my own understanding of theism. If he ignores my personal arguments for theism, and they remain un-refuted, then I win the debate. He must refute all of my arguments in order to win.Standards of LogicI don't think Pro understands exactly what I was saying here. I'll try to explain it again.IF non-theism is true, THEN we are here by chance and evolution. We would only be further developed animals. We know that we have consciousness, but we do not know that we can trust our minds for rationality and logic. We can observe reality, and we can create things and use things that work, but we cannot trust that our logical systems are correct. There may or may not be objective truth in the world, and we would never be able to know if we could discover it.IF theism is true, THEN we would have been created by God to be rational beings. We can trust logic because we were designed to use it. We should be able to discover objective truth in the world, because we know it exists and we know that we can use logic to discover it.Non-theism is a paradigm that does not account for rational discource between two or more people. The point of debate is the presupposition that truth exists, and by reasoning, we can discover that truth. However, only under a theistic paradigm can we trust that debates and discussion are rational methods for discovering truth.By my opponent accepting the rules of logic and attempting to debate me, he is already using the presuppositions that only exist in a theistic paradigm, thus demonstrating that I have already won the debate. Should he discredit theism, he is stuck with atheism, and he can not demonstrate that deduction is a sound way to discover truth. This is by far the strongest argument for theism, and one that my opponent should consider and understand quite carefully. He should not merely shrug this off as a small issue, because if he cannot account for trusting is logical anaylsis, then he shows how absurd atheism is.MiraclesI am not saying that miracles are things that we claim have happened because of ignorance. Neither am I saying that a miracle can be equated to that of looking at past events and claiming a low statistical odds that one shoud not have survived. You have straw-manned my argument and ignored my claim.My opponent then makes an awkward argument saying that doctors lose their sense of rationality right at the last second of saving a person's life, and so they then think it was God that saved the patient and not themselves? I apologize if I'm misunderstanding what you were saying, but it was very hard to follow.Doctors are professionals of medicine who have gone through years of schooling and testing to arrive at where they are. These are not laymen who don't understand anything. These are very intelligent people- these are people that you trust your life with. These people, more than anyone on the planet, know how the human body works. So, when doctors see patients, who, they know are going to die, they know what the disease and such will do to a person, and then for later sessions the disease will disappear. Tumors will disappear. Things of this nature will happen. The doctors know that these people should have died, yet something intervened to prevent the death. 3 out of 4 doctors are convinced that this intervention is of the divine nature. I trust a doctor with my life, and I trust in their knowledge of human biology. When they say that they see miracles happen in their hospitals, I trust their testimonies. The only way to refute this argument is to claim that the doctors' testimonies are not trustworthy. I do not think it is logical to assume they are lying or are incapable of understanding human biology.Resurrection of JesusWe have two options left for the first disciples of Jesus:1) Either Jesus was really resurrected by God and the disciples preached and were martyred for their faith in Jesus.2) The disciples lied about seeing Jesus. It was a conspiracy. They knew it was false yet were jailed, persecuted, and murdered for their testimonies. Option 2 is absurd for mulitple reasons. There was no motive- why would they continually suffer for this lie? Why not admit that they made it up? They successfully spread this message. If it wasn't true, how did they convince so many people without any evidence? How did no one prove that they were liars? People will not die for a lie. My opponent disagreed. I asked him to show some examples. Instead, he gave cases for people KILLING for what they believed in1) World War 2. The Nazis killed the Jews because they thought they were an inferior race.2) The Crusades. Catholics murdered because they thought they were doing God's work.3) Native-Americans and the Whites. The Native-Americans fought for their land.These three are not only NOT examples of people DYING for a lie, rather they were killing, these people were not killing for a lie either. These people really believed in what they were doing. This is not the same as knowing something is a lie and continuing to do it anyway.We do not see people die for a lie. Let alone be tortured and successfully spread a religion at the same time. My opponent cannot refute the Resurrection of Jesus.Adam and EveWhy are you so obsessed with sex? Many people go without sex and have happy lives. Once the world would have been populated, people would not want to overcrowd the planet. And as already stated, the Genesis story has been interpreted as an allegorical tale, not literal history by some early Jews and Christians. Either one is possible, either one can be argued for.ConclusionI feel that I have given very strong arguments for Logic, Miracles, and the Resurrection that I don't see how my opponent can refute. His only arguments against Christianity goes against the Genesis account, which may have been an allegorical story. There is no reason to hold to a non-theistic paradigm- theism is more rational.