The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1E

I also appreciate his organization of his arguments. In this round I will rebut his counterarguments. (1) The existence of Jesus Christ. "The issue of whether or not Jesus Christ (as a human) existed is of no concern or importance to me. " The existence of Jesus Christ as a human does apply to this debate. Proof of his existence brings an amount of validity to Biblical Scripture. And as for the issue that Jesus Christ had a son does not have a negative impact on my case. Since The Bible can only be speculated about, it can be reasoned that Jesus was talking to his spn when he said "behold your mother", whilst on the cross. My opponent makes an assumption that I agree that the Biible is 100% correct. I do not have to. I hold know connection to any church, while I make this argument, but the god of Abraham himself. The Christian religion is dynamic. The interpretation of the bible can change when new evidence is uncovered. 2) The creation of the world according to Genesis doesn't contradict modern science. My opponent once again incorrectly assumes that I believe the Bible to be faultless. I never made such a claim. My opponent asks the question, "What the heck was it? in response to: "The Earth was empty and formless". My response it was in a blank slate and the Abrahamic God gave it life. He made it sustainable for life, he wanted like an artist, to create a masterpiece. The burning Bush and the staff were Godly miracles not everyday occurrences. I said that the creation according to Genesis directly aligns with the Bible. My opponent then states that " You can't go changing aspects of Christian theology as you see fit. " why not? as I had said before Christianity is dynamic, and so therefore, are the opinions of its believers. Opinions vary from Church to Church. My opponents then says (i assume quite emphatically) "THEN ITS WRONG. " Oh really? So when a scientist comes up with a new idea that takes certain principles from another and applies them as they seem fit, does it make either of them wrong? NO. It means that they have varying opinions. Again, as in my opponents own guidelines that its probable that the Abrahamic God exists. The perfect placement of the earth. My opponent actually strengthens my case with this contention. "When you consider how so many planets out there are incredibly inhospitable, it doesn't seem to be so much of a coincidence. " Exactly! The hospitable zone is so minuscule, that it is indeed a miracle of God that we exist. This zone is perfect evidence of an intelligent creator, because of the sheer size of the universe. What science has to offer isn't any more probable then my argument. This theory assumes that an extremely hot and dense "universe" blew up and created space as we know it. With so much probability and mathematical chance involved in such an assumption, I say that it is equally possible that the Judeo-Christian God placed earth in the center of the hospitable zone. My opponent does not employ any levels of "proof" that are more true than my own. Neither of us can concretely prove that a God did or did not exist, so the only job of the voters is to realize that this debate is not about proof but likelihood. Think about it. What is more likely? That as, my opponent suggests that we as humans exist, just out of random chance that is based on conceptual mathematics, or a creator, who placed us here on its accord, within, the tiny hospitable zone, so that we could experience life, which it created from a void and empty space? Ponder that, and when you are done, vote aff.