God does exist

Con says he doesn't have to prove atheism is true. Hmmmm if you don't have proof of it then it's a faith! Con cannot back up FAITHeism. Fail 1. The ontological argument. " By that reasoning, we have to also say that 2 is possible, which means God does not exist." Wrong since"god doesnt exist" is an absolute statement. Saying it's possible god does isnt absolute. " By that reasoning, 2 is true because the non-existence of such a being isn't logically incoherent either. So far every reason Pro has given to think 1 is true equally applies to 2, which means that none of these reasons are sufficient to make us prefer 1 over 2. They still seem equal, which means the ontological argument fails." Wrong 2 fails because it cannot be necessarily true for a god to not exist in every possible world. If god doesnt exist in 1 world it can"t be extended to every possible world. A being existing would extend to all worlds and would necessarily be better than one not existing. As in every possible world a being must be possible, however this being would be the greatest maximal being therefore in a world where god doesnt exist wouldnt be possible. The ontological argument cannot be reversed. That is the simplified version of what WP said. 2. The moral argument Con uses hand waving and magic to escape from Slick"s questions I posted. He then complains that they're not arguments. Well since this is the last round I know he did this to escape from my rebuttals. Con runs from this argument. If morals arent objective prove a case where rape is right. Where do you get your morals from if morals are not objective. Why should you judge Nazi Germany if morals are not objective. If morals are subjective why should anyone follow your standerd. 1. This proves morality is objective. Because of the sense in cultures would have to be an objective standard in our minds 2. It's not an ad hominem. As people who deny objective morality follow a morality that is objective. 3. I've demonstrated it. 4. Not an ad populem. As the Philos know whats up. 5. So atheists believe silly things? I know that. 3. The Christological argument Con runs from my arguments and tries to win by presenting an argument of his own. Sure rising from the grave is improbable if there is no god. So to say it is improbable is begging the question and circular. Con straw mans the die for a lie argument. It's not someone died therefore it's true but since they died something they saw must've convinced the it's true. We have evidence they died from later dates,however these are based off other evidence found at that time and records. There's no way it can be fabricated. Con says they could've lied, however there is no way. As matt slick proved " It is very unlikely that the disciples faked the resurrection of Christ. In summation, this is why: 1.They would need an elaborate plan involving many unpredictable elements: guards, other witnesses, etc. 2.There is a large problem in developing a motive to deceive that would be greater than the consequences of that deception. Remember, the disciples would be risking their security, safety, families, and their lives for their beliefs. 3.The guards at the tomb would have to be bribed, but the only bribing we see is from the Jewish leaders (Matt. 28:11-15) who had a very strong motivation to finish what they had started with Jesus. Various witnesses not involved with the disciples would have to be obtained in order to validate the story. But this means that a strong incentive would have to be offered to the additional witnesses since their story would likely get them in deep trouble with the Jewish leadership. 4.The apostle Paul. He is a wild card. What illegitimate thing would motivate him to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus when it didn't happen? Remember, he was a heavy persecutor of the church. Something happened to change him. According to him, it was the appearance of the risen Lord Jesus. " carm.org/disciples-stole-jesus-body-and-faked-his-resurrection Then states that it could've been a hallucination. This fails hard for these reasons " First, the claim that Jesus had returned from the dead wasn"t natural at all. Some of the Jews of the time believed that there would be a general resurrection, a resurrection of everyone, at the end of time, but none of them expected an individual to be resurrected in the present. Second, some of those to whom Jesus appeared certainly weren"t expecting him to come back from the dead because some of those to whom Jesus appeared weren"t even disciples of his. Some were converted to Christianity by their experiences of the risen Jesus; those experiences cannot have been produced by their faith, because they didn"t have any faith until they saw him. Third, and most conclusively, they add, the appearances of Jesus that were claimed just aren"t of the kind that can result from hallucinations. Hallucinations are individual affairs, but the appearances of Jesus were before groups of people. Group hallucinations do not happen, there must have been something else going on than this. Again, then, it is concluded, the naturalistic theory doesn"t do justice to the historical data." from www.existence-of-god.com/resurrection-evidence.html Con has so many fails to prove and defend atheism. Jesus is the risen God as I have proven 100% beyond shadow of a doubt. Some atheists may even convert reading this debate. Jesus rose and God exists it is a fact and should be taught in science class in public schools.