The Christian God is more likely to exist than Pagan Gods

My opponent has defined the terms. I will agree with the terms provided unless a problem arises with them. My opponent asks me to provide arguments for Zeus or other Pagan Gods. I humbly deny this request. I will, in this debate, go on the basis that there are NO arguments that support the existence of Zeus or other Pagan Gods. I contend that there 'exist' arguments for the God of Christianity, but I contend that these arguments are flawed and incorrect and thus lend zero credence to his likelihood of existing. Refuting opponents arguments: A. The resurrection. Biblical scholars agree that there exist zero contemporary commentaries on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, there exists a lively debate on whether or not Jesus of Nazareth even existed as a historical person: http://en.wikipedia.org... Moreover, even if all you say is legitimate, this only means that the disciples who witnessed something "thought" they saw a resurrection. To claim that a divine miracle occurred based on 2nd or 3rd hand sources from 2,000 years ago as your only evidence that it happened is far fetched indeed. Using Occams Razor, the simplest alternative is more likely. Either the son of God came down to earth and was killed, then resurrected and rose from the dead days later or alternatively the sources are incorrect or the 'witnesses' were mistaken. Which is more likely? Obviously the natural explanation. The Messiah was supposed to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The Messiah was supposed to "save Israel". The Messiah was supposed to return all exiled Jews to their homeland. The truth is that Jesus did NOT fulfill the messianic prophecies from the O.T. There is no mention of the O.T. saying that there would be a "second coming" of any kind. If you are going to argue that Jesus existed based on prophecy, then all of these things that I just mentioned blow that argument out of the water. In summary, Nothing so far that my opponent has argued has suggested that the God of Christianity is "more likely" than the Pagan gods of mythology. http://en.wikipedia.org... The same statements can be applied to the supposed conversion of Paul and James. Was Jesus' tomb empty? Who knows. No one knows for sure. What happened? No one knows for sure. The sources are too sketchy and non-contemporary to say anything for sure. However, you admit that there are tons of explanations for Jesus' tomb being empty or what not, and I would argue the same as above. What is more likely? B. Jesus was prophesied by the O.T. You are right. There are contradictions concerning the prophecy of a messiah. Not only that, but there are also numerous evidences suggesting that Jesus himself was NOT the messiah prophesied in the Old Testament: Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Messiah would be born to a virgin. Nowhere does the O.T. predict that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Nowhere in the O.T. does it say that the Messiah would be "Godlike" or God in human form. Moreover, Jesus was supposed to do many things that was prophesied in the O.T. that he did not do (like rebuilding the Temple or bringing all Jews back to their homeland). Also, if you contend that this will happen in the 2nd coming..The O.T. mentions nothing of the second coming. In conclusion, Nothing that my opponent has argued suggests in any way that the Christian God is more likely than any Pagan Gods. If my opponent is to use the O.T. as evidence for his point, then he must address all of the contradictions and inconsistencies between the O.T. prophecy and Jesus' life.