God Does Not Exist

R3.Con.1 - Perhaps the God of Christanity doesn't Actually Exist - but not For your Reasons :Peter was a fisherman. The very first Christians were anti-phrasaic Jews. So - perhaps it is just my lack of knowledge - but any "lofty" argument from cosmology, etc - is analogous to appealing to magic - relatively.So, any argument against - must make sense - be rational, (Isaiah 1:18), must be just, and life-giving. (The Way, Truth, Life, long-story.)So - if you are going to argue against the existence of any God - it should be at least be Rational :1. God is bad : Ad Hominem, Misrepresentation.2. Not Good Historical Records : Argument from Silence / Ignorance;3. It seems like a fairy tale : Argument to absuridity.4. That and that are alike, that's not true - so that other must not be true : Genetic Fallacy5. etc, etc.... None of those arguments are actually valid, appealing to sound reason. R3.Con.2 - How to Actually Disprove Christianity : 1. Christianity claims the God of Moses;2. For a Jew - disproving Christianity - has zero effect on the existence of God.3. Disproving both Judaism and Christianity - does not rule out the plausibility of there being a God.But - 1. Christianity asserts that "Christ is the Wisdom of God", (1 Corinthians 1:24).2. Christians appeal to God's mercy and desperation for humanity regardless of their moral standards and wrongdoing, (the entire book of Job).2. Further, Christianity asserts that it would be a gross-misrepresentation of God to assert that God desires the wicked to perish, rather than have life, (cmp. Ezekiel 16, et al. vs. Noah's Flood, and Sodom, etc).3. So : If Jesus' existence is disproven : then it is disproven that God actually "set the record straight" and demonstrated what "True Justice and Wisdom is" to the whole earth, (the spectacle of unconditional advocacy from the cross; Col 2:15).4. Proving that God has not shown nations what true justice is - would be to disprove that God is desperately advocating for all nations, all people - and would disprove that God actually had rejected the evil that Israel had been doing from the very beginning, (Ezekiel 20).5. Proving that God never objected to Israel's evil - would be to prove that God of Scripture is not benevolent.6. Proving that the God of Scripture is not actually benevolent - is disproving Christianity.Disproving the validity in any one of those premises would invalidate the entire world-view.R3.Con.3 - Argument from Reason : "Moving the Goal Post" - What is the Standard of Evidence that a Historical Person Existed?In Re.R3.Pro - Also, remember that there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus ever existed.1. Even contemporary Pharasaic and Rabbinic Judaism are certain that Jesus existed, and documented it - historically - and that's saying a lot. They wouldn't even refute his miracles, (see Maimonides' letter to Yemen).2. You tell me : What is the standard of proof - to validate the probability that an ancient historical figure existed, or not.3. What is the standard of proof - that would validate conclusively, that historical figures existed? Did Socrates exist? How about Hillel I? King Solomon? How do you know?Your argument is invalid - because it seems to appeal to a double standard - that you haven't even defined, (yet?).Now legally - in court - today, the testimony of witnesses is sufficient as a standard of proof for matters MUCH more significant. Multiple witnesses - today - is a standard of proof that is more than sufficient, for example, when describing an individual that robbed a store.Although Jesus' existence does not either proof or disprove God - I do believe that the "God of the Bible" cannot be proven - without also proving the existence of Jesus / the Messiah. So, I can accept the relevance of the question - in this context.In Re.R3.Pro - "... Remember that all these characters were invented before Jesus' supposed birth, therefore, there is an overwhelming posibility that Jesus was also invented."I will rephrase - The argument is without merit - to conclude someone did not exist - simply because they shared qualities with multiple fictitious characters created before they lived. It is non-sequitor.You are appealing to a werd form of "Guilt by Association" fallacy - when doesn't entail anything meaningful.But - even so. Vedic and Zorastrian theology, (the Medes, and Magi) also apparently prophecied the Messiah - which plausibly served as the basis for even the Greek mythos.In Re.R3.Pro - John E. Remsburg's that Jesus was never Mentioned Historically :1. Fundamentally - this is an irrational argument - an argument from ignorance / silence - and without merit from the get-go. You are putting words into the author's mouth - he is not saying that his observations PROVE anything - only that they advise "cautious skepticism".2. The author appears to be citing Greco-Roman literature, (perhaps Josephus), not acknowledging the massive amount of Aramaic literature, (see Armenian Church; Aramaic; and Syriac Manuscripts).3. The historical record itself was distorted, destroyed, not prioritized, or lost to the elements. Example: The Pharasaic and Rabbinic Jews went on a rampage - exterminating any rejection to their authority, (see the Mishneh Torah, etc).No matter how you spin these premises - they do not lend to a deductive / certain conclusion.In Re.R3.Pro - "The Bible mentions events that totally go against reason. It sounds more like fairy tales if you ask me."This is an irrational argument, appealing to humanity's own ignorance - lack of scientific development.Today, let alone in 100 years, there is no reason to believe humanity could not perform those "miracles" without sufficient technology.The entire premise that : "It is infantile to believe there is a God" is archaic, (literally) - and completely dismissive of our own reality :Given our level of science - even /we/ are becoming Gods. It is absurd to posit that other civilizations exist in the universe, and could have existed for millions of years longer - and are not able to perform miracles similarly.Regardless - Your opinion is subjective, unscientific, and irrational - and so does not lend any value to proving anything conclusively.In Re. R3.Pro - "Cruelty of God : This also wasn't originally meant to be on the debate, however, you've forced me to bring it up."This is an irrational argument. Even showing that "God is Cruel", is proving that "God is".Regardless, it seems to ultimately appeal to ad-hominem/non-authority - judging actions as "immoral" without understanding consequences in view of eternity.In Re R3.Pro - Authenticity of the Bible :The existence of God - cannot possibly be contingent on whether there are "contradictions" in the Bible.You are challenging Christianity by questioning the authenticity of a Bible that didn't even exist - at the time; never mind the fact that Greeks who had no knowledge of Jewish texts accepted Jesus - strictly on Philosophical grounds!1. The New Testament didn't even exist when Christianity began - Christianity absolutely doesn't require it.2. Jews - at that time - didn't even have a "Tanakh", (Hebrew Bible) - but relied on Aramaic translations, and books like Isaiah, Enoch, Psalms, etc.3. Ezekiel 20: very explicitly states that a bunch of bad was injected in the texts / law.4. Jeremiah 33 : explicitly states that the Christian faith would rely on a law written on "everyone's hearts" - that would be, (and is), known to everyone.1 Corinthians 2:4 - and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.