The Judeo-Christian God exists.

Thanks, Con.1. Rebuttal"It would only make sense that Adam and Eve would believe in the existence of their Creator" I have two points to make on this. The first is that belief in a literal man named Adam and woman named Eve is not a prerequisite to belief in the Judeo-Christian God. The second is that even if one did believe in a literal Adam and Eve, there is no reason to think that Adam and Eve did not have a relationship with their Creator. Who's to say that one must be a Jew or a Christian in order to have a relationship with God? I certainly have not made this assertion."I had stated that "evil" in this argument meant disaster and disease which affected the innocent."My apologies. Evil is defined as immoral, so I don't really see anything "evil" about natural disasters and diseases. Nevertheless, you seem to be asserting that this is some sort of logical contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of natural disasters/disease. I see nothing contradictory between these two statements, so I assume there is some sort of hidden assumption that you're working with. In order for natural disasters/diseases to be an issue for belief in God, you'd have to show that it is logically impossible that both God and natural disasters/diseases could exist. The burden of proof is on you to show your assertion to be true. No atheist in history has ever been able to demonstrate a logical contradiction, and until one is presented, it can be reasonably concluded that there is no contradiction between the existence of God, on one hand, and the existence of natural disasters/diseases on the other."Even those who belonged to a religion (which is now regarded as mythology) have attested to the power of their prayer. There is no scientific evidence that prayer has any effect on what happens."My opponent seems to acknowledge that people of all religions attest to the power of prayer (which seems to contradict his previous claim that prayer is useless). My opponent then goes on to argue that a lack of scientific evidence for prayer is an issue. This is a trivial objection. Science by definition is the study of the natural world. As prayer is supernatural, science couldn't possibly tell us anything about prayer. It is not within the scope of science."A man prays if he really wants something (for example, his brother to be healed of cancer, etc). If God were omniscient, he would already know that man already wants his brother to be healed of cancer and can take that into account instantly. He can also take into account whether or not this man is a good person, and whether or not he is a follower of God. Thus God does not need any insignificant mortal to alert him of any issue or help him decide anything, as an omniscient person would already know of every problem in existence and what to do about it."You're absolutely right that God already knows our needs before we ask for them in prayer. As I stated previously, I am in complete agreement with you on this. However, even though God knows what we will ask for in prayer, it is entirely possible that whether or not He decides to intervene (answer prayer) is dependent on our free choice of prayer. To give an example, let's say that God knows that a man named John really wants to be cured of an illness. Perhaps God will only intervene to help if John freely asks for it (through prayer). In other words, God won't force His help onto us; He waits for us to ask Him for it through prayer. 2. Argumentsi.) God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.My opponent gives no indication that he disagrees with the first premise of this argument (everything that begins to exist has a cause) but he does take issue with the second premise (the universe began to exist). My opponent, by stating "there was never a time when the universe didn't exist" affirms an eternal universe and, therefore, an infinite past. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem shows that the quantum vacuum state of the early universe must have had an absolute beginning. We can go back 14.5 billion years to the original quantum vacuum state of the universe, but as my opponent rightly acknowledges, we then run out of time. This quantum vacuum must have (according to the BVG theorem) have an absolute beginning. As everything that begins to exist has a cause, the obvious question raised is: What cause the beginning of the universe? As for the idea of an infinite past that my opponent seems to be affirming, I showed in the opening round that infinity is merely an idea in our minds, but it has no place in reality. This is unanimously agreed upon by mathematicians and can be easily seen by examples like Hilbert's Hotel. ii.) God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties."Morality is more complex than right from wrong, as the right can be wrong in a different circumstance."This is pure speculation and subjective opinion. It could be the case that certain acts (like stealing) are either right or wrong in every scenario. Even if "right" and "wrong" did depend on varying circumstances, this would do nothing to show that therefore there is no real "right" or "wrong". It would at best show that what's "right" in one scenario might be "wrong" in another; but again, that action would still be either objectively "right" or "wrong" depending on the circumstance. "According to the Theory of Evolution only the fittest survives. If one organism assists another member of his species he is essentially helping his species survive. To rape or torture a child is to harm someone of your species. This is why murder (human killing human) is regarded as taboo while killing animals is considered necessary."I am currently studying evolutionary biology at my university, and I can assure you that no explanation for morality is to be found through evolution. My opponent argues that actions like helping others are moral because this will increase the fitness of the organism in the long term, and that actions like murder are immoral because they will decrease the fitness of the organism in the long term. On this view, then, actions like self-sacrifice would be immoral. In other words, if a man gave his life so that a stranger whom he had never met could live, he would be committing just as evil an act as if he had raped, tortured, and murdered that same stranger's children. This is nonsensical. Furthermore, this view falters when faced with varying environmental circumstances. Murder may be immoral while it decreases fitness; but in another environment where murder increases fitness, the act would be perfectly moral and good. This means that this type of morality is dependent upon environmental circumstances, which doesn't really equate to morality at all. This is a description of advantageous socio-biological behavior, not a description of any sort of morality."Hindu sacred texts which predate the Torah provide similar commandments about morality such as do not covet and do not steal as well. Again, what makes Christianity more reliable than any other religion?"I'm not arguing that Christianity is more moral than other religions, or anything like that. I'm simply arguing that objective moral values exist. If that's the case, then there must exist a source of morality. I call that source God."There is also reason to believe that the story of Jesus was modeled after the story of Horus, an ancient Egyptian God."This doesn't have much to do with objective morality, but it's an elementary objection that bothers me. I'll have to ask you to provide a primary academic source for any comparison you make between Jesus and Horus, as I'm afraid no such comparison exists. This is a common internet-atheist myth that has no academic credibility. Until you are able to provide a primary academic source, we will continue to treat it as a myth. 3. Burden of ProofAt this point in the debate, I have 2 standing arguments in support of my BOP, while my opponent has 0 to support his BOP.