Con (Theist) Will Not Fulfill His/Her Burden of Proof in Establishing The Existence Of God

I thank Con for her detailed response; let’s get right into it then. Inductive Arguments & Ockham’s Razor Con claims that her use of inductive reasoning to support the God claim does not delegitimize the claim in any way. She cites scientific theories and explains how they are supported by inductive reasoning as well. This is indeed correct however the God claim is not a theory at all, it is a hypothesis. For a hypothesis to develop into a theory the hypothesis has to be tested multiple times and it has to predict natural phenomena among other things. The claim at Mount Sinai (which is supposed to establish that a God exists), cannot be tested even once, and it gives no predictive explanation for future phenomenon. It is nothing more than an unfalsifiable assumption/hypothesis that has never throughout the advent of science been demonstrated to exist. Con would love to claim that her analogy would compare her argument to something as well-respected as a scientific theory but it doesn’t even come close. Unfortunately I forgot to address a very important principle of parsimony that catches the main gist of my counter-argument. This principle is called Ockham’s razor (http://goo.gl...) and it plainly states that among competing hypothesis, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Stated in another form, the simplest hypothesis is the more informative one because less information is required to answer one’s question. It is a widely upheld principle in fields ranging from science, to logic, and even economics. When applied to Con’s argument her God hypothesis falls apart. According to Ockham, any of the 3 possible alternatives to the Mount Sinai event that I have suggest (so far) are all more likely to be true than the God hypothesis. Why is this? Because the God hypothesis has by far the most assumptions and creates more questions than it comes to answer. When God is used as a hypothesis we have to ask how exactly did God communicate at Mount Sinai? Is he all powerful? Why is he all powerful? How does a supernatural being effect the natural universe? How did God come into being in the first place? The assumptions go on ad infinitum. My alternatives however are natural events and as such they require no supernatural assumptions, therefore they are more likely to be true. In response to Con’s inductive rebuttal I would like to ask: Why wouldn’t God want us to establish his existence with reliable and testable evidence or even better, some full proof deductive argument? If God really did exist I see no reason as to why he would take such strides to hide himself so carefully. Wouldn’t he want as many people as possible to be certain of his existence and to follow his teachings to progress our world? All these questions are easily answered by any atheist and are in snug correspondence to Ockham’s razor as well. Other Religions Con claims that Judaism is unique in its mass revelation but I have yet to see any credible sources from Con that the entire Jewish population was even there. Anecdotal evidence from scripture alone is not sufficient to believe it either. According to Con’s Kuzari Principle we should also believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ as it is written by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:6 (http://goo.gl...). It says that a large crowd of more than 500 eyewitnesses saw the risen Jesus Christ at the same time. This is directly analogous to Con’s claim of a Jewish nation hearing God at Mount Sinai, and has it has the same source of evidence in an anecdotal form. Perhaps it is not as many people but 500 is still a hefty amount, and who is to arbitrarily choose how many witnesses are necessary to believe an event? What Con does is makes some kind of special pleading case in support of her religion while rejecting all other public miracles for every other religion. This method of argumentation is not only biased but intellectually dishonest. Con also goes on to capitalize the word INDIVIDUAL when asserting that a miracle was accounted to by one person. I must point out to her that the miracles and stories listed in the Torah are written by INDIVIDUALS. Moses was an INDIVIDUAL who claimed many supernatural miracles. Noah was an INDIVIDUAL. Abraham was an INDIVIDUAL as well. I must also ask at this point, do you believe the Noah’s Ark story actually happened? Because if it did happen, and it happened after the Mount Sinai event, then there is a time period when the transmission of all of Jewish history rested upon only EIGHT people. These people would include Noah, his wife, his three sons, and his son’s wives. Rebuttals Con: “Past lie is problematic because it is easily verifiable. At whatever point in Jewish history (assuming the revelation is false) someone, say Moses, tries to convince a few followers that their ancestors heard G-d speak, they can check with their parents and grandparents to confirm that there indeed was (or wasn't) a tradition of mass revelation.” If Moses says their great great ancestors heard God speak there is no way to verify this claim, one’s grandparents could not even verify it assuming they were even alive. Over two thousand years ago the life expectancy of people was very low such that being alive at the same time with one’s grandparents was a rare occurrence, thus leading more credence for an impossible to verify claim. The new Jewish idea (during ancient times) of a single God that can explain everything is also a very tempting idea to believe in the first place. It would make more sense to believe in this seemingly ultimate explanation in a time where nobody knew about evolution, the germ theory of disease, or how natural disasters come to fruition. The biggest weakness though with the God hypothesis is exactly because it is unfalsifiable; it seemingly explains everything but explains nothing with any useful or predictive explanatory power. I could accomplish the same task of explaining the mysteries of everything by positing the hypothesis that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent Genie that created the universe and subsequent miracles through magic. The claim is equally unfalsifiable, explains everything, but has no predictive explanatory power as a scientific theory would. Con: “'What is more likely? That the natural order of the universe has been suspended in my favor? Or that I have made a mistake?', reveals circular logic. The implication of the question essentially precludes the possibility of a supernatural event occurring in the first place. Much of the argument assumes that supernatural events by definition cannot occur at all.” Con doesn’t seem to understand what circular reasoning is. It is a logical fallacy where the argument begins with a premise that has the conclusion already embedded into it. What I did is nothing of the sort, I am simply stating that both supernatural and natural events are possible but if one believes they have witnessed a supernatural event, they should be a little more skeptical of it because it is so very rare. Natural events are by essence much more likely as they are rigorously consistent and are constantly verified through science. If a modern magician of today’s skill where to go back in time and deploy their arsenal of magic tricks nearly everyone would believe he has some sort of supernatural powers, but they would all be wrong. Science and skepticism is our best hope at fighting against such impossible to explain scenarios. Con: “In regards to epistemic probability, I'd like to point out that though no one has proven a miracle occurred through the natural laws of science it's probably because a miracle defies the laws of natural science. Once again, this is circular reasoning. Assuming a miracle must fit in with the laws of science is a prerequisite for such an argument. You can't use a tool to create something that cannot be created by that tool.” Again, it is easy to see that Con does not have a firm understanding of how to distinguish between what is and what is not circular reasoning. Miracles have never been demonstrated not because they break the laws of natural science, but because they have simply never been recorded with any instrument known to man. Obviously God splitting the seas and most other miracles would be directly recordable by many different devices even if they break the laws of nature. Therefore, Con is blatantly wrong I do not presuppose that a miracle must fit in with “laws” of science I say something quite opposite. It is definitely possible but has never been demonstrated. Con: “Pro brings up the story of Joshua and the standing sun. Firstly, there are other cultures in existence that have records of the event taking place.” (Proceeds two cite two unreliable sources). Con has just cited two ridiculous sources one is from an obviously unreliable and biased creationist website. The other is not very well known but is written by a man named William Andrew Cecil Bennett. This is what Mr. Bennett has to say in his article: “NASA may not have discovered Joshua's long day, but I certainly have. The truth is obvious. Earth has gone into and out of reverse orbits many many times. There may have been sun miracles every 7 years. Then there may be about 1000 sun miracles since 2700 BC.” I refuse to allow Con cite such ridiculous nonsense and try to get away with it. This man claims his knowledge is superior to that of all the experts at NASA and does so by claiming it is obvious?! He has no supporting evidence or scientific background! The only thing obvious is that Andrew has a specific agenda to assert his miracles as true regardless of whatever science is thrown in his face. It is frustrating that Con continues to use untrustworthy sources throughout this debate and I only hope that the readers go look at them and see for themselves how unreliable they really are.Con has still not fulfilled her burden of proof. I am out of characters and I await Cons rebuttals.