A god exists, as defined by the PRO side.

"1. Evidence can only lead us to discover the physical aspects of reality, but not the spiritual 2. Because of this, we cannot achieve absolute truth, we need other methods to be objective" This assumes the existence of spirit. Spirit can only be assumed to exist, as it is unprovable. "3. You cannot distinguish between reality and illusion if you restrict yourself to science" Yes, we can. Science can clearly show this. "4. We as humans rely on several things to know: the mind, and experience" Yes, but experience isn't enough. Events must be controlled to be well-understood, which is why one-time, subjective events cannot be scientifically proven. "5. Therefore, it is only fair to rely on a divine experience to verify God and the spiritual realm" Can we experience God in a laboratory, under controlled circumstances? "[The Masoretes wrote] with the greatest imaginable reverence, and devised a complicated system of safeguards against scribal slips. They counted, for example, the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book; they pointed out the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the middle letter of the whole Hebrew Bible, and made even more detailed calculations than these." This is irrelevant detail. "The Dead Sea Scrolls (one of the oldest manuscripts) were discovered and compared to the Masoretic text. Only 3 spelling changes were found, none affecting the entire message (3). The body of manuscripts of the O.T create a self-correcting system of the errors in the O.T, creating essentially a perfect O.T (4). As for the new testament, only minor errors were made in transmission none affecting doctrine (5). Plus, it's been shown that the New Testament is not required as the church fathers quoted from it so much, so even if we didn't have it, the church fathers would technically be our "new testament." Accuracy of transmission between the Qumran scrolls and the Masoretic text proves nothing, and the other points are worded quite confusingly. "if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, [the patristic quotations] would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament." Irrelevant. "On the whole " archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine. Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics." No actual evidence is provided in this quotation. "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contraverted a biblical reference", whereas on the other "Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." Excepting the extensive evidence for a 13.75 BY old universe. As for the books on accurate prophecy, I don't have much time to read them, so I'll get to the logical arguments (mm, my favourite!) 1. The problem of evil: Yes, I acknowledge that there are many possible explanations for evil. Classic examples include: Free will: If god intervened in the world, it would not affect free will. God has been said to intervene in the Bible, but never does today. He has a plan: ...which involves people constantly dying of cancers, illnesses, wars, crime and faith-healing scams. He is teaching a lesson: ...which is lopsided and affects mostly poor, third-world nations. 2. The impossible rock: If God is all-powerful, he must have the power to do everything. This means everything! If he was to lack the ability to do anything at all, he wouldn't be the God of the Bible, because the Bible says he is omnipotent. Sources: I made no evidence-based claims, only logic-based ones, so I have no sources.