evidence for Judaism

My opponent's point that one does not need to become Jewish so as to discourage biased voting is confusing. A better reason I would think is that it is unethical, unfair, or ruins the point of debate. Anyways I will now move on to my opponent's arguments. It is hard to summarize my opponent's first argument that something must have originated the big bang. My opponent shows his ignorance by completely ignoring my argument from R1. I will try to show my opponent's response to my refutations of his first argument below. Total age of atoms=a time in pre bang state= b time in post state= c 1.-a(total age)=b+c. 2.-a(total age)-b=c. 3.-a=infin. b=inf. If so c=0. My opponent's third point does not logically follow from his first two as if a and b are both infinite then the value of c is of absolutely no importance as it cannot possible change the value of a or b as they are both infinite. //"If god created the world there is no problem bec. Time is also a creation and did not exist before creation."// This makes absolutely no sense. I already argued that time is not a 'creation' but an inherent part of the universe. This still means that time did not exist before creation and is the same as saying that god created the universe except the unnecessary attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence are not needed. My opponent is simply adding unnecessary parts to this equation with little proof to back up his claims. //"if there is no creator was the cause of the gas of the big bang? Furthermore what caused them to be in motion?"// First, this is an argument from ignorance. Just because you do not have an answer does not mean that we must accept that the cause is god. Second, this does not prove in the slightest that the creator was the Judeo-Christian god. Complexity My opponent next brings up the point that te universe is too complex to have originated without the help of the creator. I ask that my opponent brings any proof to back up this claim before I respond. //"Now according to the law of conservation of mass, mass cannot be created. If god created the universe that means he did the imposable. This is evidence that god is all powerful."// What a fun piece of circular logic my opponent has provided! My opponent claims that because something is impossible that simply reinforces that his god is all powerful. This is like claiming that because an apple fell from a tree it means that there is an invisible man has a grudge against the ground and thus throws apples at it. My opponent's answer provides no answers. Miracles //"Another piece of evidence is the millions of claims of miracles many books of miracles have been written hundreds (I am being extremely conservative it's probably thousands if not millions.) of people from various religions testify to having experienced miracles."// This piece of "evidence" cannot be accepted at this time as my opponent has not cited one single example of a miracle. He also tries to use miracles by people of other faiths as evidence of his own religion. I would ask that he explain this. //"The last piece of evidence that I will present for now is the evidence of chain of transmission of the revelation at Sinai. Evidence of "revelation at Sinai" is as following: hundreds of thousands observed it and communicated it to others. Through communication the story does not die with the death of the generation that observed it, rather it is trans generational it remains being passed down generation to generation by millions of people from millions of people to millions of people in a continuous chain for over 2000 years."// My opponent's last piece of "evidence" is that a lot of people believe something is true. I will ask my oponent not to commit the fallacy of the argument from popularity and actually bring real evidence of his religion to this debate.