IN MY OPINION, God does not exist.

All Christians agree that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant, and that Christ was resurrected and atoned for the sins of the world. These are the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. There are many schools of thought for the rest of it, too many disagreements for me to cover all of those beliefs; to ask for this is impossible, and it only shows poor conduct on Pro's side, as I have continually explained why he needed to drop this ignorant concept. Yes, the belief in God does encompass all of Christianity, but different doctrines about God differ from each denomination.Standards of LogicDon't trust your logic, and question your logic, is substantially similar. My argument is that the atheists have no substantial reason to trust their logic. I'm not saying some atheists will not trust their logic, I'm saying they will do so without a valid reason. If an atheist conceded that they have no justification in trusting logic, and understood that their worldview offers only moral relativism, then these atheists would be consistent. I'm not arguing that this paradigm is inherently wrong. I'm only arguing that, if an atheist argues that there is objective truth, and that it is morally right to spread that truth, they have stepped onto the theistic paradigm,; they have become inconsistent, and have proven that they need to invoke God in order to refute him. You said that theism is the wrong paradigm. This argument is not saying that either paradigm is correct or incorrect. It is only pointing out how the nontheist must borrow from the thesitic paradigm when they want to debate the existence of God.MiraclesI did not claim that I proved miracles exist. I argued that if we trust the testimony of doctors, then we can conclude that miracles exist. You do not trust the testimony of doctors, so I can only convince you that miracles exist if I can persuade you that doctors provide reliable testimonies. I have been unable to provide that to you. But, if you ever are in need of medical attention, and you allow a doctor to examine you and treat you, then you have been inconsistent with your argument that you don't trust doctors. This is the second argument that exploits the inconsistency of atheism.The ResurrectionYou're still completely missing my argument. You've only given examples of people killing for a lie. The early Christians were not killing others. Other people were killing them for what they believed in. But you are claiming that the early Christians were willing to be slaughetered, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, beaten, and murdered, to protect a lie that they had no way of benefiting from. What you are arguing for is, for lack of a better word, nonsense. You have not refuted this claim; you have only offered corrupt people killing for something that they think is true, not for a lie, or for Nazis getting punished for a crime. Adam and EveAsserting that my refutation does not destroy your argument does not make it so. I have answered all of your objections to this event, and have also even shown why this event does not need to be taken literally.ConclusionOnly in a theistic paradigm can we trust logic and acknowledge moral objectivity (i.e. it is always wrong to commit murder, no matter what culture says diffrently). We can trust miracles exist if we trust the testimony of doctors (unless you don't trust doctors assessment on human biology, and then you can't ever go to any doctor lest you contradict your argument). We can also trust the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. We can conclude that God exists from these facts.