God do Exist

Rebuttals I will now respond to my opponents main arguments that God “do” exist.Point 1: Existence of JesusI'm skeptical about the existence of Jesus, however it doesn't hurt my case if he existed. So I will not debate that here and just concede it.Point 2: Would someone die for a lie?The “would you die for a lie” argument can't prove anything. It makes a list of assumptionsThe gist of this argument is that the miracles or resurrection of Jesus must've happened in order for the apostles to be so willing to die for their beliefs. This ignores many possibilities, such as*They themselves were tricked. Jesus could've really believed he was real, but he could've been deluded himself.*They remembered the events differently than what actually happened because the false event was constantly being reinforced by everyone else.*They considered the cause to be true, but embellished or exaggerated some things.*They were killed for some other reason and the reason was later embellished.*They could've said it all was a lie, but that concession was never made public.This argument isn't based on the New Testament at all, or sufficient evidence. The Gospels nor the Epistles talk about someone dying for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead. The only martyrs mentioned in the NT are, [1]*Stephen in Acts. He himself wasn't an eyewitness, but a later convert. If he died, he would've died based on hearsay. In the story he wasn't even killed for his beliefs, but on a false charge. [2]*Apostle James in Acts. We're not told why he's killed, what he died for, nor if recanting would save him. [3]That's it for martyrdom until the 2nd century. In the 2nd century we hear about Christians being burned for a false charge of arson by Nero [4]. We don't know if any eyewitnesses, but it would be irrelevant because they were killed via a false charge of arson.As Richard Carrier said“As far as we can tell, apart from perhaps James, no one knew what the fate was of any of the original eye-witnesses. People were even unclear about who the original eye-witnesses were" he continues to debunk another martyr “There were a variety of legends circulating centuries later about their travels and deaths, but it is clear from our earliest sources that no one knew for certain. There was only one notable exception: the martyrdom of Peter. This we do not hear about until two or three generations after the event, and it is told in only one place: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, which was rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs” [5]It's clear, those who died say nothing about dying for their beliefs.Point 3: ResurrectionCause and effect problemPro states an effect, that Jesus rose from the grave, and expects this to prove a cause. This is clearly not done, Pro needs to prove even if Jesus rose from the grave that God actually did it. If Pro is going to invoke the supernatural, then how do we know Jesus wasn't risen by some wizard wanting to mess with his followers. We don't! Even if Jesus did rise, I don't know if there's any way to prove that it was caused by God and not something such as magic or aliens. Until Pro proves the cause of this effect was by God, his argument doesn't affirm the resolution that “God do exist.”The 500 and Circularity.Pro claims it's a historical fact that 500 people say Jesus. What Pro is doing here is assuming the bible is correct, to prove the bible is correct, and that is pure question begging. There's no conformation of the 500. None of the Gospels mention this, no writer other than Paul mentions it. We have no names or evidence this happened, nothing but assertion. I have a question for Pro. If I told you my friend rose from the grave would you believe me? Probably not, but if I wrote in a language you can't read, buried for 2000 years, and said 500 people saw it, then would you would believe it?Pro's evidence is unconvincing.Point 4: Science doesn't refute God.This point is irrelevant. If science doesn't refute God, this doesn't mean he exists. Science also doesn't refute the flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns, nor invisible magic tea cups. The reason why science doesn't refute any of these is because science deals with what we can test. None of these things listed can be tested within our world, therefore science doesn't make a claim about them.Pro says something here that just bugs me and I must address. He says that “Evolution is still a theory.” This is true, but so is gravity. Pro doesn't understand what a theory actually is. Science.yourdictionary.com defines theory as“A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” [6]So to say “Evolution is still a theory” is just to say “Evolution is just a group of facts that have been repeatedly tested”. New argumentsPro wants to give new arguments in this round for some reason. So this I will do.Main argumentThis is the main syllogism of my argument.1. 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”2. God is suppose to be perfect3. His scripture is full of errors making it imperfect4. A perfect God can't breath an imperfect bookC. The God of the bible doesn't exist.Justifying Premise 3.I will justify premise 3 with these 2 arguments1. Contradiction between Jesus' birthThe Problem“The Gospel of Luke claims (2.1-2) that Jesus was born during a census that we know from the historian Josephus took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed. But Matthew claims (2.1-3) that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive--possibly two years before he died (2:7-16). Other elements of their stories also contradict each other. Since Josephus precisely dates the census to 6 A.D. and Herod's death to 4 B.C., and the sequence is indisputable, Luke and Matthew contradict each other.” - Richard Carrier [7]Many have tried to refute this contradiction, yet none have succeed. Some have tried to claim that Quirinius was governor twice. In Roman history there's no evidence that someone ever governed a province twice. Further evidence show there was no possible way for him to be governor twice, since we know who was governor between 12-3 B.C. Richard Carrier refutes every apologist answer to this contraction in [7]“...this becomes an irreconcilable contradiction after an examination of all the relevant facts.” - Richard Carrier2. The Bible and GeocentricismJoshua 10:13 says“So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.”In the essay "The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology" Glenn Elert writes“The most important biblical quote supporting a geocentric universe can be found in the Book of Joshua. This will be used as the starting point for our scriptural cosmology.Joshua 10:13 is quotedThe evidence in support of a geocentric model is overwhelming here. Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. He did not order the earth to cease rotating nor did he qualify his statement with the divine knowledge that the sun was merely made to appear stationary. The sun was commanded to stand still because it is the sun that moves..” [8]The sun always stands still, there's no miracle. Saying the sun stopped and delayed for a full day is saying the sun revolves around the Earth. For such a long time we understood this to be wrong. Geocentricism has failed so many predictions and its competing Heliocentrism model comes out the winner every time. [9]The resolution is negatedBack to ProSources[1] http://pastebin.com...