God exists

Who is God? I will make the goalposts clear. If can show that there is something supernatural about the book of Daniel, that makes it concievable directly related supernatural things exist. Like God. If the book of Daniel is consistent with the rest of the Bible, that is evidence the God of the Bible exists. If these prophesies are true, that shows God knows and controls history for his own purposes. You can't be any more triumphant than that. If the canon is inconsistent in it's characterization of God, Con should demonstrate this. If there are necessary attributes of God left completely out if the canon if subtracted from, Con should demonstrate this. If there are credible books left out of the canon that introduce conflicting attributes of God, Con should demonstrate this. Otherwise his point about God being a collection of attributes from different fictions should not be taken seriously. Why don't I have BOP here? Con only needs to show a few unrefuted serious flaws to make his point. Not much effort would be needed on his part. If I am correct, and the canon is consistent, I would need to go through every point of consistency in 66 books to make my point. It would be the same burden as “proving innocence,” and impossible in any current debate format here. Nonetheless I will provide a basic outline of the consistency of God throughout the Bible citing some specific examples: God is the only real God. Nowhere does he acknowledge the existence of others. God pursues a personal relationship with humans: Genesis 3:8-9 5:24 Exodus 33:11 Jeremiah 2:32 Matthew 23:37 God is superior to humans in strength and righteousness. God always upholds his Covenant with Israel. God promised redemption through the child of a woman. God requires obedience and mercy above sacrifice. God controls everything, including history, for his own ends. Daniel 11:36 and onward My opponent did not disagree that Daniel chapter 11 through v.35 accurately described historical events corroborated with extra-biblical sources. That allows us to move on to v.36. There is a gap between the description of the Antiochus Epiphines/rise of the Hasidic Jews and “the king” mentioned in the rest of chapters 11-12. In 11:1-35 the kings were always specified to be a Persian king, the first Greek king, or the king of the South or king of the North among the 4 Greek empires. Antiochus is a king of the North. Then v.35 continues “until the time of the end.” “Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.” V.36 just says “the king,” not the king of the North, then this and the rest of the events through the end of Ch.12 describe the “end times” in those words. In Ch.2 and Ch.7 it was already established there would be four important main world powers in history, starting with Babylon, going to Persia, Greece, then a final one of which only one king is ever given any detail. This only described king of the last empire would be the final earthly king, who would be destroyed and replaced by God's rule. The king of the North cannot be the final king destroyed by God, because he is a king in the 3rd kingdom, the Greeks, which are later replaced by the 4th kingdom. The fourth kingdom is the only one described as existing in the end. Critics cannot have it both ways. If Daniel was just guessing, why would he have so much correct detail about the previous events, then suddenly make no sense? Most critics do not claim Daniel is just a lucky guess. If the book of Daniel was written at a later date and just described what already happened, why wouldn't the events of the following king be described that was known to occur? The date of authorship Sirach doesn't mention any prominent Jew that lived outside Israel. He doesn't mention Ezra, Job, any judge but Samuel, King Asa, Jehoshaphat, Mordecai or Jonah. Silence on Daniel in this one book does not mean he didn't exist or do what he said. Daniel is written with only 15 Persian words and 3 Greek words. If the book were written at a later date, say 160 years into Greek rule of Israel, (Antiochus Epiphanies) one would expect far more Greek words to be used. This is evidence of an early date. Daniel is included in the Prophets by Josephus. http://tektonics.org... (See linguistic objections Placement in Canon: Canon fire Jesus Sirach) A contemporary of Daniel is Ezekiel, who talks of Daniel two or three times. Several other characteristics of the book indicate an early date, from within the Babylonian and Persian Empires. Daniel 2:18 uses the title for God “Lord of Heaven.” This would have been offensive to Maccabean Jews, who associated that title with Zeus, who's image Antiochus Epiphanies set up in the Temple. Belshazzar, final king of Babylon, was lost to history until 1854. The author of Daniel would have had to have been there, or a near contemporary to have known of his existence. http://www.britannica.com... Unless I've forgotten something, I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and provided evidence of an early date for Daniel.