The God of Christianity is probably real.

Thank you for responding. Now, one may have noticed that my opponent doesn't actually raise any arguments against any statement made in my proof, which is really the only way to show a proof to be incorrect. Therefore, he has actually conceded that my proof is true, and therefore, God exists. This affirms the resolution, because that God is the God of Christianity. That God is also the God of Judaism and Islam, but that's really irrelevant to this debate. "Who is to say that the only thing that can give rise to space and time is a supreme being?" Obviously, my opponent did not see that I have a proof that fairly clearly outlines why God must have been the answer. He would have to raise an argument against a specific step in the proof to declare it invalid as a whole, and since he has not done so, he has dropped my proof. "And even if I were to go so far as to say that the universe had to be designed by an intelligent agent it would not follow that this agent was the Biblical God or that it approved of Christianity." Neither of those are actually requirements for the resolution to be affirmed. All I needed to do was show that God is a supernatural being (Step 14), is conceived as perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient (15), and is the object of worship in monotheistic religions (16). Nowhere in this debate is it said that the God of Christian theism is exactly what Christians conceive Him to be. The only definition we have requires only the above three to be true. The addition of "of Christianity" to the resolution only requires that this be the God referred to by Christians. Which He is. "The truth of the matter is that no one knows why or how the universe came into being." Well, I just wrote up a pretty nice proof on the matter. Maybe it would serve my opponent well to read it. "My opponent's concepts of common sense are no more valid in his argument with regards to the origins of the universe than they would be if they were applied to Quantum theory." I don't see the actual relevance of Quantum theory to this debate. Furthermore, my proof is perfectly valid. My opponent gives no reason to believe otherwise. My proof was designed to prove the existence of God, not the validity of Quantum theory. "We are too early in our study of cosmology to verify any of the outlandish claims my opponent has put forth." My opponent calls my claims "outlandish" without identifying which claims are outlandish, or why. "My opponent has demonstrated nothing more than his own credulity and willingness to believe in virtually anything." Wrong. It is just that if a claim is made, the more trustworthy the person who claims the claim is true is, the more likely the claim is to be true. Since the resolution is based on probability, and not certainty, my statements are valid. "The odds that people will be untruthful are always greater than the odds that the laws of nature have been suspended." And you say that this must be so because...? If a person who you trusted all your life and never lied to you suddenly told you that he saw Jesus perform an actual miracle, and then continued to go on with his life as normal, but still believing what he saw, might what he says be true? Would it be more likely to be true than if a random hobo told you the same thing? If you answered "yes" to both of those, it puts us in a predicament, as we can't actually assign any odds to a random "maybe," with only the knowledge that one "maybe" is more likely than another "maybe." "And what would you think of your mother if she told you that she flew to Jerusalem on a winged hoarse last weekend?" Well, how can a hoarse be winged? http://www.merriam-webster.com... "Hoarse" is an adjective, and therefore cannot be affected by another adjective, "winged." Therefore, I would obviously dismiss the statement as false. "The fact that someone may be perceived to be 'trustworthy' is not sufficient evidence to establish the truth of miracles." Thing is, I don't even need to establish the truth of miracles. Now, as for the problem with miracles, it isn't even entirely relevant to the debate. It neither assists in negating the resolution nor prevents me from affirming the resolution. Why are we wasting time talking about miracles, again? I'm starting to think that it's just so that my opponent can seem to have more sources, as one of his sources [2] is just a page about Turkey, and another is just a completely irrelevant page about Quantum theory. Although, #4 claims that religions constantly contradict each other when it comes to miracles. However, many major religions, not just Christianity, agree that Jesus did have the power to perform miracles. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Indeed if a reconciliation between science and Christian theism were to take place it would mean that we would have to square the laws of biology, chemistry, physics, history and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a torrent of iron age convictions." Actually, we'd just have to realize one simple fact: the supernatural has power over the natural. That's all. "Ask yourself which is more probable; that the laws of nature have been suspended, in your favor no less, or that you are mistaken." Well, given my proof, the laws of nature can indeed be suspended, because there is a supernatural being with power over nature. So, obviously, I am not mistaken. "It should be obvious that the burden is not upon the atheist to disprove the existence of celestial teapots." However, the burden is upon the atheist to show why a proof in favor of God is invalid. This is a burden that you have yet to meet. Now, the second-most-relevant part of my opponent's argument, after the short and unsuccessful attack on my proof, is his conclusion, in which he claims that although I have proven that God must exist, I must still show that God "can answer prayers, forgive sins, perform miracles, and take a special interest in human affairs." However, I actually don't have to do this. My job, as stated by my opponent, is "arguing in favor of the existence of the God of Christian theism, no more and no less." Now, the God of Christian theism is also the God of Judean theism and the God of Islamic theism. He's the same God; each culture just has a different conception of what He actually does, and what His characteristics are. Even if I don't prove that God answers prayers and such, God is still worshipped by Christians, and revered by Christians. He is "the object of worship in monotheistic religions," which is in the established definition of "God." Therefore, He is the God of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam), even if He can't be proven to have every characteristic that Christians deem Him to have. Otherwise, He would not be able to be the God of multiple religions (which he clearly is), because different religions have such different interpretations of Him, and different sects of Christianity have different interpretations of Him. Therefore, the God of Christianity, the God of Christian theism, is God, plain and simple. This means that my logical proof is indeed a proof for the God of Christianity. The resolution was affirmed last round. I look forward to the next round, Freeman. I would just like to note that when I typed up my proof, I had prepared to have two different chances to rewrite it (one for this round and one for the next), so you're going to have to do some extra work in rebutting my proof to make up for the round in which you ignored it. That will be all for now.