The Christian God is Real

Because God created us as moral beings in the likeness of Him, we can love, make decisions, and have character. ” The notion that animals cannot love or have other feelings is preposterous; it is observed every day. What is the difference between human friendship and the friendliness a loyal dog expresses to its owner? How is the panic a zebra feels when being chased different from our panic when we are in an extremely hard situation? How does a mother chimpanzee’s love for her daughter differentiate from that of human mothers to their children? When these animals will do all they can to keep their children alive, and we do the same thing, I cannot see the difference. You have again failed to give evidence that relates God to morality and merely given another groundless claim. “why not just kill off the old people since they are just taking up space and not putting any effort into society? Why do we love others so much? ” I did not say that they are giving an effort NOW, I said, and I quote, “because we have evolved to survive on the planet and we know other animals did the same thing, and so there is a price on every life (an effort)”. You have straw-manned my argument to say that they are not doing an effort now, and so we should kill them, when I clearly said that they did an effort by evolving and fighting for their own lives, and this is what gives their lives value. This has nothing to do with the debate at hand anyway. Love is a good position to have with someone else, and I take a quote from Bertrand Russell’s “Why I Am Not A Christian”: “For this reason, love is better than hate, because it produces harmony instead of conflict between the wishes of said people. When there is love between two people, these win or lose together, but when they hate, the success of one is the failure of the other. “ You again use the “I don’t know, therefore God” logical fallacy with morality. Even if we did not know this, it does not mean God is real, because it hasn’t been proven He exists! “If there are none of these, life cannot exist. It would not just be a different form of life; life would NOT exist. ” I have refuted this argument numerous times, and I will say it one last time: no one (no matter how intelligent they are) can tell you that life cannot arise in different conditions than those of this universe. This is simply because we have not found any other universes that have different physical laws, and we can not know that life could not arise in different conditions. This is yet another logical fallacy by the name of the black swan fallacy, which means that the one using the fallacy affirms something based on past experiences, rejecting different possibilities. . http://www.conservapedia.com... As a matter of fact, we don’t even know what the first life form WAS, and we don’t know how exactly it originated, so it is not possible to make an accurate assessment about what can and cannot create life when we know so little. “We have other documents of these people not only in the Bible. ” Name them and show reliability “Any historian scholar specializing in the life of Jesus can tell you who these people were and give you evidence of who they really were, using actual documents” Name this evidence and actual documents and show reliability. “We must have a certain amount of trust in these historical figures, or there will be no history whatsoever” Pro says we should trust certain historical figures or there will be no history, yet fails to give a criterion to choose which ones to believe in. Alexander the Great met and had contact with people we know and there are testimonies of people we know that can give accurate information on what he did and when he did it. There was even a city with his name at the time he conquered it! (Alexandria) “They were eyewitnesses of Jesus” We don’t know! I have been forced to repeat myself twice now: we don’t know who these men are, and whether or not they were even more than one person using several names. The Bible doesn’t even claim that Mark was an eyewitness, for example, and he does not appear to be one. Adding supposedly real quotes does not make a source reliable. The gospels are imperfect, they contradict each other, and are not reliable sources. Many examples are present such as contradictions in Jesus’ birthplace. Matthew claims that Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were in Bethlehem for a census. . http://www.biblicalcatholic.com...... The women reported the resurrection to others: Matthew 28:8 The women told no one about the resurrection: Mark 16: 8 (The bible) Only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. . http://infidels.org...... Many small, untrue statements are also mentioned, including Matthew 4: 8 8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. . https://www.biblegateway.com...... Unless the world is flat, you cannot see all the countries or kingdoms of the world. The biggest mountain on Earth (Mount Everest) is not big enough to see half of the world, so this is a false story. Pro does not need to respond to every contradiction, these are merely used to point out that they are imperfect. Even if these were real men, it does not mean that what they say is real, for most of what they say is false or made-up. “Before Jesus died, he fulfilled prophecies of the Old Testament” There are millions of Jews (who follow the Old Testament) who will disagree and say that Jesus was not the Messiah, he was just a prophet. Jews believe the Messiah is yet to come. Isaiah is vague about who the man to come would be. He only mentioned the conditions in which it would happen, he did not make the incredibly small effort of mentioning the Messiah’s name. If anyone else follows the things written by Isaiah, he could technically be called the Messiah. Nostradamus, for example, wrote that a man in a blue robe will come to Europe from the Middle East and bring about great destruction. Any powerful enough Arab who reads this could meet the criterion, this does not mean that he was the man predicted to come or that the prophecy was real. “I cannot critique every single religion that is not Christianity. I don't know all of them, or I can't list all of them in here critiquing every single one. Please state one to promote instead of putting it in a vague term of "other religions" Pro has made no attempt to answer my question. I have not asked that he critique every religion, nor have I implied it, I have merely said that several religious believers will claim that their religion is the right one based on your arguments: the fine-tuning of the universe, the origin and complexity of life, morality… Once again I state that his argument merely points to missing information, and can be used to point to any character desired. I will put forth another example in case the point is not obvious: I am a Hindu, I rely on old texts to justify my beliefs, and I see things I can’t explain in the universe. I see the world around me and say: “What a marvel! Thank Brahma, for it must have been him who fine-tuned the universe, created life, and gave me my superior morality. And who can deny that Krishna existed, therefore Brahma is real! ” I ask the reader to consider what the difference between my argument and Pro’s is. It seems that this is my last word, so I give my gratitude to Pro for accepting this debate. Thank you Pro, you provided me with an great experience to express my thoughts and argue with someone of a different opinion. For the readers of this debate, I hope that the voting that will take place afterwards will be fair and just, and not appeal either to me or Pro because his/her beliefs are the same to ours. I formally say goodbye.