The Judeo/Christian god most likely exists

No Proof Pro presents a fallacious comparison. Knowing a favorite color is not comparable to the enormous claims that Christians make – especially when such claims are presented in a classroom. It isn’t illogical to ask for a shred of material evidence, after all, god supposedly created everything! Why wouldn’t he leave any trace of his existence? Indeed, we can talk translation, morality, and epistemology all day long, but at the end of the day, as you so eloquently put – finding evidence for god is like finding lizards in Antarctica. So then, what is left to distinguish a purely hypothetical intelligent designer from the god of the bible? Only the words of men, and the happenchance of where you were born (how do you know the creator isn’t Allah? ). Problem of Evil Pro gives another fallacious comparison – and a telling one at that. Pro compares the human species to a child not knowing that a shot is good for him. If the child remained ignorant for the rest of his life perhaps he would remain frightened of a lifesaving shot. All I can say is thank goodness that we can educate a child, and learn for ourselves what is good, and not make it a matter of trust or faith. The contradiction of evil disapproves the Judeo/Christian god. Pro’s response is interestingly very terse in this area. If god exists, and he is all knowing, as it says in John 3:20, “For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. ” (By the way – that is contradicted several times in the bible: see Gen 4:14-16, Job 1:7, Hosea 8:4) then choice is made an illusion and our fates are decided – therefore he creates a man like me specifically for an eternity of hellfire. Therefore; contradiction. Questions persist: Why would he point evidence away from himself? Why would he leave no material evidence? Why would he choose a group of illiterate tradesmen in an Iron Age desert to reveal himself? Why aren’t we seeing miraculous works of water into wine today? Why isn’t it obvious? Why punish those who doubt with an eternity of hellfire? I notice Pro spends little time with these questions, but is more than happy to spend several paragraphs in discussing translation in the next contention. If you can’t see why the acceptance of an evil, wicked creature like Jeffery Dahmer into heaven might be morally repulsive, than I needn’t waste characters trying to convince you. Not Unique/Divine Pro apparently finds it both logical and moral to cut the hands off of woman who grab the testicles of fighting men. I’ll continue to claim that this is bronze age nonsense, and that it really doesn’t make much sense – I mean, how often does that happen? Let’s take a look at Leviticus, if that passage isn’t satisfactory: Lev. 20:9, “Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. ” Lev. 20:9, “If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. ” Lev. 20:27, “Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. ” I mean, we’re talking about a book that just seriously gave a punishment for being a wizard – and you mock my comparison to Lord of the Rings! Pro claims that Luke 14:26 is purely a game of semantics, followed by an ironic comparison: the act of abandoning one’s family (and hating them) is like an innocent fondness for donuts. It always interests me that the Bible is the perfect word of god – until I find a hole in it, or something morally disgusting – then suddenly it is about translation and semantics. It’s about confusion and what he really meant was and all this babble. I’ve discussed the translation of “Firmament” at length in other debates. It’s a historically accurate account, and if Pro disagrees, than I challenge Pro to explain the clearly defined account of “waters above and below the firmament” as is given in Genesis. Indeed, the firmament once proved to be a hotly debated topic among the righteous – another chance to pervert science to suit tribal ideas on the sky. (Pro can check out St. Thomas Aquinas’ long winded essay on the topic here: . http://biblehub.com...) Jesus’ linage can be chopped with Occam’s razor: what is more logical; that they used an illogical and needlessly complex account, or that they made an error? The long and elaborate development of the biblical text is well documented. The bible as we know it now has been translated countless times and was written by numerous scribes. From Hebrew to Greek in the 3rd Century BC and then later multiple times into Latin. The Old Testament might be a purer translation, but the New Testament shows countless signs of being tampered with. As it was translated into Latin through the 2nd and 4rd centauries it became increasingly corrupted, as Jerome, a chief translator of the time put it, there are 'almost as many texts as manuscripts'. The Vulgate was the effort by Jerome to clean up the mess. So we are only a few hundred years in and already we have seen a deep corruption and a clean-up effort. I’ve expedited the longer history of translation for character count. (. http://www.historyworld.net...) Just take a look at the books that have been cut out of the biblical text. The Vulgate is a mishmash of Jerome’s work and a few other scribes – and Jerome himself put the gospels together by using the ‘best’ of several Greek volumes. Translation errors are still being used – Cyril of Alexandria said that ‘camel’ is misprint and Jesus actually said that it would be harder for a rope to go through the eye of the needle, for example. (. http://www.biblicalhebrew.com...) The Cosmological Argument I still see no logical reason agaisnt asking who created the creator. Pro refutes Krauss with no science. It’s not semantical, it’s based in physics. He examined evidence and came to a conclusion. Its quantum physics; the vacuum state. It has the lowest amount of energy possible – it is nothing. However, nothing has been found to have electromagnetic waves and particles that appear and disappear. (. https://books.google.ca...) I can dive deeper into this if Pro insists, but I am not a theoretical astrophysicist. At the very least, the argument is void; you can’t prove it and neither can I – but at least my side is making progress. The Moral Argument Pro makes a fallacious statement. The word comes from Hebrew: “yə·lā·L95;îm”. It means children, and it is used in many other places, ie: in 1 Samuel 1:2, “but Hannah had no children. ” Indeed, the verse says “there came forth little children”. I hope Pro doesn’t seriously consider bear mauling to be an appropriate punishment for troublesome children – or even young men. I claim the right to have superior morality over a god that would see such a wicked action permitted. I never claimed chimps were as moral as we are, I claimed that they hold numerous foundations upon which morality could have grown - keeping in mind we don't come from chimps, but from a more complex common ancestor. I ask Pro to seriously ask how often human beings go out of their way to help people in their average day. How many homeless people do you walk by every day? The classic Hitchens point: Name a good thing a religious person can do that a nonreligious person couldn’t. Now think of something evil a religious person would do that a nonreligious person would never do. Which is easier? Resurrection of Jesus Pro misunderstands Occam’s razor. Another definition: “Answers that are overly complex should be dismissed for simpler answers”. Occam’s razor then: Which is more likely: the laws of reality were broken once two thousand years ago in an illiterate, ignorant desert society for your benefit, or that it probably isn’t true. I’ve run out of space, so some points will have to wait for the next round. Thanks Pro.