God probably exists

So your point of me making defences is irrelevant. You did not answer my question. This is not a defence, just saying that we cannot fully prove either sides of the argument at the moment but atheism is more probable " sticks to the argument/// In the first round you did not argue what you were supposed to (meaning ROUND 2), you instead attacked my position-not even knowing what it was. Going on about god of the gaps, before I had a chance to say a thing. Your job was to argue YOUR SIDE, not against mine, NOT IN ROUND 2, your rules, your mistake, ironic. ///Response to Part 2: Is Christianity not an Abrahamic religion? This debate is primarily about Christianity. Also, abiding by the rules you would have looked up the definition of religion. The belief in a god. I said to define all of the words using oxford dictionary, I can"t define every word for you. Spirituality is another subject and that is generally a sort of worship but not to a god necessarily. I may have made the mistake of saying monarchy instead of emperor, however that further proves the point in this argument. Look at the first paragraph of the website you linked me too. /// Yes it"s an Abrahamic religion. Yes, you defined god. Unfortunately you pretended god=religion=Christianity. Talk about special pleading, strawmen and fallacies of composition. What sophistry, what disingenuousness. ///"Caesar"s Messiah was a book published by a dot com businessman named Joseph Atwill in 2005. / That is right, but since this is about Christianity it seems odd you make this point, considering I just justified my point "/// No your point clearly used the word "religion. " Which includes Christianity, but thousands more-your mistake, you should have said what you meant, not just redefined words with no backing to do so. Show me ONE definition of religion that says "Synonym of Christianity. " YOUR BURDEN. ///Response to Transition: Once again we are arguing about Christianity! !! I have given specific and significant evidence, about why Christianity was created for this purpose. Confucianism is completely different and not mentioned in my argument. Answer too "Why is atheism more probable than god? / Why is god less probable than atheism? " Well that is what we are debating, so read my arguments. Also, please respond to my question/// 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! ///Response to Part 1: Once again we are debating about Christianity! "Christianity explicitly says lies in its holy book. /// No, you defined three words, none of them "religion. " I stuck to your definitions, you did not. 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. //Response to Part 2: I did not say ("Think about DNA for a second" by the formation of DNA. ") That makes no sentence, I said the first part of those quotation marks. I do keep up with a lot of this sort of information. If indeed you looked at fact"Also as I stated earlier, if he were real he does not even follow his own rules// Irrelevant, he just has to fit the definition, not your ethics lol. Predetermined BY something, yes it does. By code, by god, who cares-it"s not the issue-free will or lack thereof is the issue. //Yes you are spot on! Evolution does address life on this planet! .. .. Well considering all of these mentions of evolution in a negative connotation this all wise god perhaps made a few mistakes in his book of truth. It seems strange that the person who is thought to have created everything does not even know what he is talking about. // This debate is not about evolution, no refutation necessary. //Response to Part 3:// Bible means "THE BOOKS" it DOES mean library, it"s not MY claim, it"s true. To even loosely argue that other religions have a bible, the point was you"d need at least 3 books, one would expect more like a handful. And many religions as proven have NO books, so certainly no bible. It was a clear point, your sophistry is unimpressive. //We are arguing about Christianity! Your point about other religions not have a bible or god is pointless. "/// No, when YOU bring up "religion" IN LIEU OF "Christianity" that"s YOUR mistake-you now made the point about MUCH MORE than "Christianity. " If you mean Christianity, then SAY IT. Otherwise, I"ll address what you said-"RELIGION. " Which unfortunately for you is hardly our debate topic, which is GOD, which is a sliver of religions, under the heading "Monotheism. " May as well just claim any time the word "idea" or "belief" are used, we should psychically know which one you mean. Your topic, YOUR BURDEN to use the one you describe, not a vague one as you did-like "religion" That is also a fallacy of composition, fallacies are fallacies, you argued one long fallacy of composition. ///Response to Part 4:/// Not what I said, I said your definition was false, and only inferred, so the one that stands is the first one given-those are the rules. And your definition was false and self serving, religion is NOT CHRISTIANITY. Christianity is A Religion, big difference. I've at least attempted to refute his arguments. Most, if not all were outside the debate as I've shown. My opponent argued FOR evolution, super. .. that's not the topic. My opponent argued the ETHICS OF the Christian God. .. that's super, also not the topic. My opponent made many impressive arguments . .. for ANOTHER topic. I hope he thinks it through next time, and figures out the difference between basic stuff like "religion" and "Christianity" they are NOT synonymous no matter how big a tantrum Con throws. I followed his defintions, he had priority on 3. I used sources HE SAID were acceptable for his favorite word, which remained undefined until I gave the dictionary definition to avoid further confusion. Instead of respecting MY priority, which I had, he didn't define it, I DID, he threw another tantrum and argued them synonymous with no basis or valid backing by ANY SOURCES. That said, my opponent never put forward any argument toward the actual topic and only argued against arguments I never made. Considering he only even attempted headway at two of my 5 arguments, not even touching three of them. .. meanwhile he put forward ZERO arguments in favor of CON on the debate TOPIC and instead argued points irrelevant and against points PRO never made in most cases. That said, the preponderance of evidence and points MUST BE ON MY SIDE-the only side that made any attempt toward his side of the ACTUAL DEBATE TOPIC-a topic Con himself came up with. .. thank you.