The God of the Jews exists, and Judaism, as explained by Orthdoxy, is the correct religion.

1.Granted that to state something is true because there is no known alternative is logically flawed. However, this argument goes deeper than that. I would be willing to accept that the Big Bang was caused by another system of events. If so, what caused that system of events? The Law of Cause-and-Effect has never been broken to our knowledge. No matter how far back you go, no matter how many systems you posit, the question still remains as to what was the initial cause that wasn't affected by another cause. So we are forced to conclude that according to the laws of the universe, there must exist something not bound by the laws of the universe. There must exist a force that is supernatural (defining supernatural as outside of nature). Essentially, any supernatural force that caused the universe to be created is God. It's not like Isaac Newton or any scientist who cannot figure out a scientific explanation, and thus attributes it to God. (If I see something that works according to some unknown principle, it is possible that I don't know that principle.) However, this is a logical argument; the very question, by nature, excludes any scientific answer. The next part of Cons argument essentially is repeated in step 2, so I will address it there. 2.I will admit that my "Benevolent God" argument was presented too quickly. Here it is in greater detail. It stands to reason that God created us for a purpose. This is because evolution, or whichever process created us, could not have been the result of a random system God set up. Namely, because evolution generated by random mutations does not reach human or animal or even certain plant levels of complexity in the given time. An allegory: when a mouse completes a maze in record time, the cause for celebration is not that the mouse broke any land speed records or moved with unusual quickness. Rather, it is because the mouse proved that it was capable of traveling towards a goal, and that it knew what the goal was. If it had accidentally moved only in correct direction the first time in the maze, its timing would have been identical, but the odds of that happening are infinitesimal. Similarly, the age of our planet does not allow for the development of its life unless that was its goal. That is to say, the genetic mutations necessary for our life are so complex that in order to achieve them in the time given, they would have to have such a low margin of error that they could not be coincidental. It would be like a hurricane that whipped through a junkyard and created a Boeing 747. It is conceivable this could happen if the vortex held the pieces for billions of years, but if it only held it for the length of time necessary for (an intentional) construction of a 747, it would seem suspicious. Add in a being who is capable of orchestrating such a thing, and you would have no doubt he was responsible. Similarly, if God exists, there is no doubt that he was deliberate in creating humanity. God could not be evil or amoral for a very simple reason; historically he has not. Not to be contrite, but all evil is borne of man, e.g., free will. Although there are natural disasters, these are clearly the exceptions, not the rule. If God was evil, it would be very easy to make the atmosphere different so although we survive, every breath would be a living hell, or to make all food taste bad, or to make no beauty, or any other of the plethora of things that make life on earth pleasant. If God is evil, he is doing a pretty bad job of it. So it stands to reason that God is benevolent. Still, what could God possibly "need" from us? There is nothing God cannot do without the existence of others except show mercy. One cannot show mercy unless there is something to show mercy on. Therefore, we exist so God can show us how great he is by giving us happiness. (PS- perfection does not mean not having needs. It means the ability to meet any need you have. We are the means for God to meet his need to show benevolence.) 3.When I say true happiness, I mean to exclude things that are temporal, like relief at having your physical needs met, or thing like adrenalin rushes or sexual activity. I mean a real, genuine satisfaction in life. And while I have no doubt that you and your niece both have genuine happiness, it comes at a price. You're not getting it "for free". You have to sacrifice time and effort to create the relationship with your niece. It may be worth the effort, but the effort is still requires. All things that cause happiness require effort. Anything that is given without effort only causes temporal joy. Thus the phenomenon of children (or adults) being "spoiled". True happiness is earned. 4.I mean to create perfect happiness, where it is not marred by anything. Everyone in the world has something that bothers them. "Effective" happiness is happiness that, by nature, cannot be marred. 5.You're correct, that God can (and, I believe, does) imprint us with the instinct to do good. However, in order for doing to be a challenge (and thus require effort), one must have an instinct to do evil, as well. Thus, we still need an unshakable, clear, concise, and undeniable (if a person can overcome his evil instinct (which has to be as strong as his good instinct or else overcoming it does not take effort) a person can overcome his good instinct as well) set of instructions. In other worlds, we need a disinterested source, because human beings are (and must be) unreliable. 6.Granted, thousands of people have believed God spoke to them, the same way thousands have believed aliens abducted them. However, never in history have 1.2 million people simultaneously claimed God appeared to them at the same time, in the same fashion, and told them all exactly the same thing. Imagine that you woke up one morning and the entire city of Dallas claimed that God spoke to them last night, and told every last one of them the same thing. I'd be very inclined to believe them! Conversely, people who claim that God spoke to them or that aliens abducted them rarely make parallel claims, and if they do, they're not simultaneous, so they had time to influenced by their predecessors. Also, I'm not aware of any group of thousands that think God spoke directly to them, telling them to kill a certain person. Additionally, Con says he would be inclined to believe an individual who displays miracles. While Con may believe this, remember that for most of world history, the general populace believed in non-divine magic and miracles. The supposed miracles performed by Jesus, Mohammed, or even Moses were not considered at the level of impossibility they are today. God would not rely on magic tricks to deliver his message, because people would be able to conceive of it as a hoax performed by a magician. 7.Christians believe Jesus overturned the Law of Moses. God would not have done something so monumental without holding an event to rival the giving of the Law. 8.Can you conceive God being so evil as to tell thousands of people they must do something, and then not telling them he changed his mind? As I explained, a single prophet is worthless when it comes to things like this. 9.I am using this point to prove that the Bible requires the oral explanation that only the Jews have, namely the Talmud and associative texts. 10.I apologize for not explaining that I was referring to libraries of explanation that stem from the Talmud. Reform Judaism, surprisingly, denies the divine origin of not only the Talmud, but of the Bible, and even Conservative Judaism maintains that rabbis can override laws set down in the Bible, because its' a man-made interpretation of God's will.[1] It's easy to see why these logics are faulty; how do explain the claim that God spoke those words? How do get 1.2 million people to agree on an interpretation? So, no, other branches of Judaism do not claim their interpretations are valid. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...