The Christian/Jewish God (Yahweh) most likely exists outside of peoples imagination.

I will address the prophecy aspect in round 4. To be honest some of the concerns you raise are new to me, and I am encouraged to investigate them further. My initial hunch is that many of the phrases you are reading literally were probably Hebraisms, terms and expressions used by the Hebrew people of the time. Instead I will begin by addressing some errors you made concerning Noah, and discuss the shortcomings you find in premise 2 of the moral argument. Then I will present a new argument afterward. (The other will be next time) First you address a cubit in a manner of feet, but really it is in inches. What kind of vessel would Noah need to store his family, and sets of animals from a large-scale flood? In Genesis 6, God tells Noah to use gopher wood and the gives Noah divine instructions for the Arks size. "This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits." In curiosity of the length of a Hebrew cubit, the Biblical book of Ezekiel mentions that there are two cubits, one the shorter, traditional cubit, but also a cubit that is a hand breadth longer than this traditional cubit. Robert B. Y. Scott wrote in The Biblical Archaeologist journal in 1959 that Egypt also used a two cubit system, and the most likely measurement for the Hebrew cubit was 20.4 inches, and 17.5 inches for the traditional cubit. Using the smaller cubit for calculations, the ark measured 437.5 feet in length, 72.917 feet in width, and finally 43.75 feet in height. Because God instructs Noah to build three decks within the ark in verse 16 of the same chapter, this gave the ark a measurement of 95,703.563 square feet and 1,395,676.953 cubic feet, a massive ship indeed! The construction of the ark raises two questions of scientific feasibility. The first concerns information given in the early verses of Genesis seven. Noah used this massive amount of space to carry two of every kind of land animal and seven of every clean animal; Is it possible to fit the amount of animals qualified in that description into the ark? Well, according to the animal qualifications, there was no need to store fish, marine creatures, mollusks, marine mammals, many amphibian creatures, nor many arthropods or protozoans. Also, it is unjustifiable to argue that all the current species, varieties, and sub-varieties were present on an ark 4,359 years ago. Taxonomist Frank Lewis Marsh explains in his book Evolution, Creation, and Science that "more than five hundred entirely distinct colors, tints, shades, and combination all developed from a single kind of sweet pea since 1700 the changes that dogs have undergone which furnish us with over two hundred distinct breeds today, all of which have developed from a very few wild dogs." Using the calculations of Ernst Mayr, a renowned taxonomist and one of the 20th centuries leading biologist, only about 17,600 species (or approximately 35,000 to 37,000 animals total) of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians qualified to need shelter on an ark. So could an ark of such a massive size actually survive a deluge? Four physics graduate students at the University of Leicester tested this exact theoretical scenario. The students tested the buoyancy of the ark at an empty capacity using cypress wood (the probable equivalent in density to gopher wood), with each panel of the ark measuring 0.2 meters in width. Therefore, this hypothetical ark had a mass of 1,200,000 kilograms, which would sink to a depth of 0.34 meters in sea water; the ark at maximum possible capacity would contain a mass of 51,750,000 kilograms; these students cited that, "with the average sheep weighing 23.47 kilograms, the ark could support the weight of 2.15 million sheep we believe the ark to be of sufficient buoyancy." As a side note, concerning the logistics of the ark, although the flood narrative makes no mention of the use of metallurgy during construction, Genesis four does mention that in the centuries preceding the flood, forging all implements of bronze and iron, was a common practice. In conclusion, both considerations of the ark portion of the flood myth are indeed plausible. Now in reference to deficiencies my opponent believes are present in premise 2 of the moral argument. Firstly, the examples he gives of Trump and the Internet are what we know as natural facts. These are facts not up for debate, they are facts about what is. They tell us about what things are like. For example they tell us that a certain object can cause pain but they do not tell us whether they should cause pain. Moral facts are not natural. Moral facts have an intentional nature to them, and involve a judgement. Believing that adultery is wrong ought to call a person to not commit this act, or instead commit an act that we morally believe is good. Natural facts like mathematical laws do not want, call, or command people to act in a certain way. Now what is the best example of something that wants us to do something, calls us to do something, or commands us to do something. It is a person, and moreover a transcendent, objective person to the effect that moral laws are transcendent and objective. If you believe a moral law against cold blooded rape and murder will always be wrong morally, and will always be wrong for any person, then you believe in objective moral values and should follow the deductive reasoning of the moral argument to premise 3, that an objective, transcendent, moral being is what gives these moral laws their nature. In lay terms, Gods goodness is the foundation for believing that certain actions are always good and others always bad. In the reasoning of my opponent, all actions are relative to the person doing those actions, perhaps the biological result of evolution within a society. To say this, essentially, is saying actions like rape are not socially advantageous, and therefore taboo, but they are not objectively wrong. Michael Ruse, a noted proponent of evolutionarily developed morals, himself wrote the those who say it is "morally acceptable to rape little children is just as wrong as the man who says two plus two equals five." Some things we all know are morally wrong, as well as other things morally good. Atheists like Peter Singer and Mark Houser wrote an article which finds that morality across cultures are startlingly similar, whereas if my opponent is correct, morals would be subject to each cultures taboos or relative to each persons belief. Imagine the moral diversity if there was a different moral code for each person or even each culture; thankfully Singer and Houser illuminate this is just not the case. We as humanity agree far more than we disagree about what is a moral or immoral action, and we ought to expect that if we believe a moral being imprinted his nature on his creation. The number of atheists who hold that all morals are relative, as my opponent espouses, is quite few. Ironically, it is often these who appeal to an objective moral value in others to get them to deny God, for example, crimes committed under the banner of religion like the crusades. Here's where push comes to shove. I believe there are objective moral facts. People who fly planes filled with humans into buildings filled with humans which then collapse on streets filled with humans are not just practicing social taboos, they are a moral abomination which no person should ever do. If my opponent wants to dig his heels in and say murder, rape, child abuse are not objectively wrong, and likewise that love, and helping others is not objectively right, then he may do so, but my appeal would then extend to you, my audience. If you believe these are wrong or right for everybody,, then I believe you have good reasons to believe in a moral, transcendent God. In reference to his conclusion that God broke a moral law, I'd have to address a specific example he has in mind, but I hypothesize that he is putting this event on the same scale as a cold blooded, senseless murder. If the action God commands, brings about considerable good, we must factor that into how moral or immoral the action is. After all we have talked about moral values, and values, such as in color values, extend all the way from dark to light with many shades in between. A doctor who tells a patient she has cancer is not solely trying to ruin her day and make her feel bad, but is weighing the fact that acting expediently can save her life, even if the news immediately saddens her. The second argument I will be defending is one I'm sure is familiar to many on this site, including my opponent, and namely the Kalam Cosmological argument. It is presented as follows: "The kalam cosmological argument is an exercise in positive apologetics aimed at proving that God exists. It may be formulated as follows: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause." - (reasonablefaith.org) I use the moral argument and the Kalam argument because they are straightforward. Atheists do no back away from the claim this universe had a beginning, hence premise 2. The reason this argument has had such efficacy in recent years and in modern philosophical scholarship is that it argues necessarily that the universe must have a creator which caused it to be. Anything that has being MUST have a cause. Even in our own lives, the things that exist have caused. For a cheap example, I caused my peanut butter and jelly sandwich's existence when I put it together. (Not arguing I atomically put it together) I have not enough space to address the bodily resurrection of Christ here (the Noah section was quite lengthy), so I will use round 4 to address prophecy briefly, debate the merits of the Kalam argument briefly, and discuss the validated historicity of Christ's resurrection. I can imagine the moral argument has had enough attention to devote any more of the limited space I have in each round.