The Judeo/Christian god most likely exists

No ProofMy "fallacious comparison" was not a comparison. If there exist things that cannot be proven with science, then it means that science cannot prove all things, and we must consider the possibility that God falls in the category of "things science cannot prove." A being outside of nature logically would.May I ask what sort of "trace" Con is expecting to find?Ignoring Con's misquote of my "eloquent" statement, distinguishing "gods" from "God" is why I've addressed the bible. Furthermore, atheists must rely on the hopes that "science will figure it all out eventually," which doesn't strike me as much better than "the words of men."Problem of EvilChildren may very well come to know the reasons for their suffering, just as humanity may come to know the reasons for theirs—either in this world, or the next. If we are in a spiritual "childhood," as the bible suggests, my analogy still stands on its own merits. Either way, trusting those who love you is a key component here. After all, in Paul's words: "now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."If I am "terse" here, it is due to a lack of space, not a lack of answer. I've had to reduce all my rebuttals by half so far.Con's "contradictions" are not. Only Job 1:7 implies a lack of knowledge, and even then, a parent could know exactly what party their disobedient kid was at, and still ask "where were you?" when they came in the door at two AM.Con addresses the omniscience paradox, which I have limited space to address, but I will say it is unfounded. If I watch everything you do for a week, write it all down, put it in an envelope, go back in time, and hand you the envelope saying "read this at the end of the week," do my accurate predictions of your choices mean you were not free to make them?- It's one thing for God not to point towards himself, but saying he points away seems unfounded.- "Illiterate desert tradesmen" as opposed to who? - On a "proven God," In the words of Yancey: "although power can force obedience, only love can summon a response of love, which is the one thing God wants from us."- Con laments a lack of miracles despite claiming that miracles should be interpreted as deception or error.- Hell is most certainly not a "punishment for doubt."On Dahmer, Con appears to believe that once a monster, always a monster; I do not. As ethics are yet another thing that science cannot help us with, we will have to agree to disagree.Not Unique/DivineI wasn't illustrating that an "innocent fondness for donuts" is comparable to abandoning one's family. I am uncertain how Con even came to that conclusion. I was demonstrating a linguistic quirk. A language that does not use the word "love" as English does would find the claim "I love donuts" baffling. A language that does not use "hate" as Semitic languages do would find it similarly baffling. Does Con think that the "nice" passages receive any less rigorous consideration?The bible makes it clear that the conditions of the Old Testament are not at all God's ideal for mankind. Additionally, Con commits errors of presentism. The Hebrews did not live in a cushy 21st Century First-World society; they lived in a virtual state of nature in the Ancient Near East. The laws in the OT reflect this, although they were almost always more humane than its neighbors' (Hammurabi favored mutilation and demanded death for thieves, the Egyptians permitted over two-hundred lashes for libel, and the Hittites killed people for sowing in another's field). Additionally, the bible describes only the maximum punishments that could be inflicted. Context, ladies and gentlemen.Aquinas is arguing from the belief of solid firmament, not for it. I see no issue with the assumption that "waters above" refers to clouds and vapor, but even if I concede Con's stance, it doesn't matter. "God made the solid dome" does not automatically mean "God made the dome solid," but rather "the thing we recognize as the solid dome was made by God." It's not a claim about science. Why would it be?Luke traces Jesus to Adam, and Matthew traces Jesus to Abraham. The two clearly had different intentions for different audiences. Why assume this is not the case all the way through?There are currently tens of thousands of extant manuscripts discovered of the New Testament—nearly six thousand are in the original Greek alone. Most of them come from the 2nd Century. We also have over a million quotations of the NT in the early church fathers. Even considering the textual variants, less than 1% of them affect the meaning of the passage viably, and even then, none of these variants appear in any doctrinal statements, such as ones affirming the resurrection of Christ. As far as the books “removed” from the NT, the traditional canon only has books that are: a) written by eyewitnesses to Jesus (John, Jude, etc), or b) sourced by eyewitness (Mark, Luke, etc). This is just good scholarship. If the standards were any more lax, skeptics would use that to discredit the NT. Damned if you do...Even if “camel” were supposed to be translated “rope,” the metaphor's meaning would still be the same. Ironically, what Con's article actually criticizes is the belief that "the eye of the needle” refers to a gate in Jerusalem—it affirms the translation of "camel" as likely correct. Whoops.I can address the OT as well, if Con requests, but I thought I'd start with the NT.The Cosmological ArgumentEternal things (such as God) do not require causes.Saying "it's physics, not semantics" is absurd. If I say that something cannot come from "nothing," the definition I am using is "not anything." If Krauss's definition is different from mine, then any answer he provides is to an entirely different question. For further reading: [1]."My side" (theists/deists) doesn't need to "make progress" on a functioning cosmological model—we already have one. If atheists can come up with a better one, by all means exalt it as such.The Moral Argument"Yeled" is translated in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles as "young men," "na'ar" is translated practically everywhere as "young men," and "quatan" ("little") just as often means "insignificant" or "immature." "Young men" is clearly an acceptable translation. It makes more sense to read this as Elisha being set upon by a gang intent on harm and/or murder, and God chasing them off, as opposed to "troublesome children become snacks for bears" which doesn't fit the narrative.Anyone can claim the right to have superior morality to anyone for any reason.Primate "morality" is still founded in evolutionary logic. Human morality often isn't. Why the jump to irrationality? Even biologists like Dawkins, who love any chance to display the ignorance of religious people, have admitted that they can't find an explanation for how altruism to strangers could have evolved in humans, declaring it a "lucky chance."Con's next point is irrelevant. Whether we ourselves are selfless has nothing to do with whether we believe selflessness to be morally good (although I do believe humanity frequently helps others. Giving to charity, for instance).What does Hitchens have to do with it? I am asking whence morality, not whether. There's no good or evil that atheists can't commit right alongside the religious. I would never think to claim otherwise.The Resurrection of JesusOccam's Razor is a guide, not a universal standard. Saying "radios have little men inside" is fathoms less complex than going into the science of receivers and signals, but that doesn't make it true, even if both theories can account for the same phenomena. Before anything else can be decided, we must agree on the initial conditions we're dealing with. A resurrection in light of the current evidence is only less likely if one already presupposes that there are no gods, in which case no argument I make will be acceptable, no matter how compelling.Source: [1] http://www.nytimes.com...