It is more reasonable to believe in the Christian God than not to

Flood MythsThe flood myths certainly are relevant. I have done no cherry picking. I am aware of the differences between the hundreds of stories around the world, and this is understandable. If such a cataclysmic flood did happen, this is a story that would be told generation after generation, and over time there would be changes in how the story is told, but the truth is preserved in God's extraordinary book the Bible.Historical AccuracyArcheology does not disprove the Bible. Understand that archeology is digging around in left overs: "Only 3% of the ancient past has survived, mostly underground. Of the buried stuff only 3% has been excavated. Of dug-up materials only 3% have been adequately published. You figure it out. Could someone piece together your personal history using 3% of 3% of 3% of the stuff you throw away? Someone might even 'prove' you didn't exist!" Source: http://www.whataboutjesus.com... In other words, you have made the logical fallacy of claiming absence of evidence is evidence of absence, even if you feel there is a reasonable expectation to find evidence. Understand the possibilities. There might be evidence that has not been found yet, or perhaps that evidence has been found, but not adequately published. The reasonableness of believing in the Christian God is not dependant on whether I can prove every single thing in the Bible, although there is evidence of the Bible's historical credibility:"The Bible is also historically accurate and reliable. Its accounts are specific. They include not only the names but also the ancestry of individuals. In contrast to secular historians, who often do not mention the defeats of their own people, Bible writers were honest, even recording their own failings and those of their nation. In the Bible book of Numbers, for instance, the writer Moses admits his own serious error for which he was severely reproved. (Numbers 20:2-12) Such honesty is rare in other historical accounts but is found in the Bible because it is a book from God."Source: http://www.jw.org...Because of the mere assertions of some scholars am I supposed to ignore the evidence of authorship I sent you in the previous round? Consider the following quote from the Westminster Dictionary of the Bible:"The asserted historical inaccuracies in Daniel are not statements which are disproved by history, but only statements which have seemed difficult to harmonize with the meager accounts of secular historians. The asserted historical inaccuracies have, moreover, been steadily diminishing before the increasing knowledge of the times of Cyrus. [...] The growth of our knowledge of this period shows how cautious one should be in doubting the historical accuracy of the Biblical records." As you can see, those "scholars" have no valid reason to doubt the authorship of the book of Daniel, and history has constantly proved them wrong. Now, if you are going to ignore the evidence and have more faith on those with the "scholar" title, that's your problem. But my argument still stands. The Bible is internaly consistent/And most attacked I already replied to your rebuttal, and explained as well why I would not believe in the Quran, even if it was the most attacked book in history: "If the Quran was the most attacked book in history I would not change religions, because this would not nullify the thousands of manuscripts that show the Bible has been the same in almost 2,000 years [manuscripts which have been found thanks to archeology, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the greatest discovery of our time], nor could I ignore the historical evidence that the Quran has not been as perfectly preserved as many claim. But despite being the most attacked book, it is also the most distributed. History shows God has been protecting the Bible, and thus I have no good reason to question God inspired all the 66 books of the Bible, each with evidence of canonicity, which you can learn about if you study the Book, 'All Scripture Is Inspired Of God And Beneficial'". That the Bible has been the most attacked book in history alone does not make it the word of God, but it is certainly something to think about. Despite all these attacks, as would be expected from the book where God preserved the truth he has revealed, the Bible has been published in over 2,600 languages. On average, more than a million Bibles are distributed each week, and billions of copies are produced of either the whole Bible or part of it. There is no other book like the Bible. God certainly has been and still is protecting it. The Bible and Science Con, I don't care how the scientific community interprets the fossil record. You did not live that far back in time, and neither did those scientists, nor do we observe birds evolving from land animals now. They cannot say it is a fact that birds evolved from land animals, and it makes more sense to me and many others to learn about the creation from the Creator himself rather than trusting in the theories of a method limited by imperfect human observation! Nonetheless, the Bible is in harmony with established scientific facts and, in fact, contains science discovered at a later date, and this was an argument you did not address: "The Bible confirms [...] scientific facts such as the water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6.), which were not fully understood until well over 1,000 years later."Concerning "Jacob and the genetic absurdities", the book Insight, Volume 1 explains,"The offspring abnormally marked or colored, and therefore Jacob’s wages, proved to be more numerous than those of normal solid color, which were to be Laban’s. Since the desired results were obtained, Jacob probably thought his stratagem with the striped sticks was responsible. In this he no doubt shared the same misconception commonly held by many people, namely, that such things can have an effect on the offspring. However, in a dream his Creator instructed him otherwise. In his dream Jacob learned that certain principles of genetics, and not the sticks, were responsible for his success. Whereas Jacob was tending only solid-colored animals, yet the vision revealed that the male goats were striped, speckled, and spotty. How could this be? Apparently they were hybrids even though of uniform color, the result of crossbreeding in Laban’s flock before Jacob began being paid. So certain of these animals carried in their reproductive cells the hereditary factors for spotting and speckling future generations, according to the laws of heredity discovered by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century [Genesis 31:10-12]." Brief SummaryP1) Evidence shows all religions have a common source, a truth revealed by God which was chaged by religion over time.P2) That truth has been preserved in God's word.P3) God's word must be internally consistent.P4) God's word must be historically accurate.P5) God's word must be in harmony with established scientific facts.P6) God's word must demonstrate to be protected by God despite of opposition.P7) God's word must have qualities that make it extraordinary when compared to other "holy" books.P8) God's word must demonstrate God's power through, for example, fulfilled prophecies and Science discovered at a later date.P9) All the premises above are true about the Bible.P10) The Bible is God's word.C) It is more reasonable to believe in the Christian God than not to.Con commits a fallacy of irrelevance when attacking the third premise by claiming that it can be explained by men choosing the books of the canon. His argument does not nullify the Bible's internal consistency despite the fact that it had over 40 writers who did the writing of the Bible books in three languages, three continents, in a period of 1,610 years so there was no opportunity for collusion. If Con would like to further investigate the canonicity of the Bible book, I invited him to study the book All Scripture Is Inspired Of God And Beneficial.Con also commits a fallacy of ignorance when attacking the fourth premise by assuming absence of evidence is evidence of absence when he feels this is the case. This does not nullify all the archeological and internal evidence of the Bible's historical credibility. Con commits a fallacy of authority by ignoring evidence that the Bible prophecies were written before the event because a "scholar" says so.Con also commits the fallacy by confusing a scientific theory with a scientific fact when attacking my fifth premise. And he commits another fallacy claiming the Bible is scientifically innaccurate because at one point Jacob had an erroneous idea about Genetics, which God eventually corrects.Con attacks my sixth premise by asking me if I would believe in the Quran if this sixth premise is true. I do not doubt that some of the premises may be true of some of "holy" books. Nevertheless, all premises are only true of the Bible. In addition, I could not ignore the thousands of ancient manuscripts that show the Bible has been the same in almost 2,000 years or the many hadith that show the Quran has not been perfectly preserved. Thus, the answer is no. I would not believe in Quran even if it was the most attacked book in history. Nevertheless, this does not nullify the argument for the Bible.For the eigth premise, Con claims I am over reading the text when I say Bible talks of the expansion of the universe. I will concede to that. However, he does not address the water cycle, was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. And yet, there it is, revealed to mankind in the Bible in 1,600 B.C.! ConclusionMy premises stand. It is more reasonable to believe in the Christian God rather than not to. Thank you, Con! Back to you now.