The Christian God is the likeliest of all the gods from thoughout time.

1 and 2: I don't accept Con's reasons for why the other gods are more believable because they're not good reasons. If the Christian God claims to be perfect, that doesn't make Him more unbelievable it just makes His claims more open to scrutiny. Even if God were shown to be imperfect this would not disprove His existence. He could simply be lying about being perfect (which He isn't, of course).In Con's analogy, neither are more or less believable. Not all millionaires have exquisite tastes. It would not be impossible to meet a millionaire wearing a shirt from Wal-Mart. You have no reason to believe or disbelieve someone for telling you they're a millionaire unless you know something about that person's character.3. Con has a gross misunderstanding of the character of God. First, Hell is not an unusual punishment, for Jesus once said that narrow is the road [to Heaven] and there are few who find it. It is also not cruel, because we are being punished for our sins, not for "having our own mind" (Con has committed a Strawman fallacy here). God has warned us of the destination for sinners. If we choose not to heed His warnings, you have only yourself to blame.4. I am not arguing semantics. We do not create humans in the way God did. In fact, we have very little power over conceiving another human. We can try not to with contraceptives, but you can't just tell yourself you're not going to conceive and expect it to happen. God created the universe from nothing. We cannot create someone out of dust, we can only produce another human in the natural way that God has established for our procreation.5. Con's argument that God's claim to be perfect makes His existence less believable is a non sequitur.7. Again, there are no contradictions in the accounts. It's not that I "don't see them," it's that they're not there. Con's analogy actually supports my argument, not refutes it. Bob may have ommitted certain major events, but he was not lying or contradicting his story. He got items for free that he would have spent money on otherwise, so yes, he saved money at the store.There is nothing in the surrounding context of Matthew 28 that showed they were still outside. And as John showed, the women went to the grave twice. Matthew was just not specific about all the events. When they communicated with the angels it may have been the second time the women are there. The problem is that Con is reading things into the text that simply aren't there.In fact, we see in John chapter 20 that after the stone was rolled away, Mary ran and told the other disciples. So when the angel rolled away the stone and sat on it, that was when Mary ran away to tell the disciples. Then when she arrived the second time, that's when the angel spoke to her. As we see in John 20, she communicated with the angels on her second visit to the tomb. We can see this because what the angel tells her in Matthew 28 parallels what the angel told her on the second visit in John 20. So the first paragraph in Matthew 28 was the first visit, and the second paragraph was the second visit. It's not exactly clear that they were two separate visits in Matthew 28, but taking John 20 into account (which gives us a more specific, clear account of what happened at the tomb), we see that they were two separate visits. No contradiction, just lack of detail on Matthew's part. There is also no contradiction in the time of day they went to the tomb. First, Mark 16:9 does not even talk about when the women went to the tomb, it's the time of day the post-resurrection Christ rose to see the disciples. Mark 16:1 just says that the Sabbath was past, which is in harmony with the rest of the Gospels which say this happened on the first day of the week (the Sabbath being the seventh day, so yes, the Sabbath was past). Also, John and Matthew do not conflict. John says while it was still dark they went to the tomb. Matthew says they went to see the tomb while the day began to dawn. What they are conveying is that it was very early when they went to the tomb. They probably started out while it was dark but got to the tomb when the first day began to dawn. There is no contradiction here, the meaning is clear (even if Con is trying to unsuccessfuly nitpick).Con is simply wrong when he speaks of singular pronouns at the tomb. In John, no singular pronouns are used at the tomb. In fact, in Mark 16 as they are approaching the tomb, they ask amongst themselves, "who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us." Plural pronoun.It is quite obvious that Con is trying to read contradictions in to weaken the case for the Bible, but he has created a Strawman argument against the Bible, trying to create contradiction where there are none.I'm not sure where Con got his quote from (as he didn't source it), but the difference between the sons of Jupiter and Jesus' resurrection is that there's actual historical evidence for Christ's resurrection. There was a historical Jesus. Also, there were over 500 eyewitnesses to His resurrection. Additionally, if the resurrection was actually false all the Romans or Jews needed to do was produce His body and the Christian movement would have been crushed. They couldn't, all they could do was accuse the Christians of "stealing His body" (Matthew 28:13). However, this couldn't have happened. There was a huge stone blocking the entrance. Plus, there were guards stationed in front of the tomb. Also, the disciples were pretty...I don't want to say cowardly, but they were pretty timid before Christ resurrected. Peter denied Him three times publicly, and they continued to hide out because they feared persecution. There's no way they would have had the courage to face down the guards, or the strength to remove the stone, and steal Christ's body. Finally, regarding Con's last argument, the fact that so many cultures have stories like this lends credibility to the deity of Christ. There are many stories that Christianity/Judaism has in common with other religions (such as a Creation account and a worldwide flood). The fact that many different cultures had stories like these lends credibility that an actual event happened. However, the accounts as told in the Bible are more reliable; they are less fantastic than the other cultures, and contain specific information (for example, to my knowledge the Bible contains the only flood account which contains the actual instructions for how the boat was made). The account of Jesus is no different. There was no historical Horus, or Mithras, etc. But there was a historical Jesus. Even if you don't believe the claims of His deity, there was a historical man named Jesus. However, there are many good reasons to believe that Jesus was who He said He was.