is God real

I can imagine that reading this full debate is tedious. To any and all who do so I appreciate it. I provided an argument against the existence of God. The God by which I argued against is the Christian God that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Pro agrees with this definition implicitly as I provided this definition in earlier rounds and he did not contest it. I articulated the problem of evil. To this argument pro has made one contention. He argues that God allows evil is to demonstrate to us that we need God as well as demonstrate God’s power when he destroys evil. Neither of these arguments are convincing. My opponent is saying that God allows children by the millions to suffer and die painful deaths simply so that they or others learn to need God. I contend that a God that would do such is not morally perfect. The entire concept of creating beings in such away that they will be forever dependent on God is abusive in nature. Further, if evil serves this purpose it undermines pro’s second contention. If evil is now essential, would not God’s destruction of it be inconsistent. To count the problem of evil negated is to agree with pro that God is by nature abusive and conceited. In my estimation the problem of evil has not been negated in this debate and thus stands. We have strong reasons to reject belief in God based on arguments in this debate. As my opponent has the positive claim about reality he holds the brunt of the burden of proof. Did he provide any solid arguments for the existence of God? It seems not. He argued that there is archeological evidence of Jesus. This is not properly linked to his claim and thus does not support his argument. Even if it could be shown that Jesus was indisputably historical and that all of his miracles happened this also does not prove God. Consider, Muhammad had eyewitnesses to his miracles. Same with Jim Jones. There are even eyewitnesses to Sri Sathya Sai Baba performing resurrections. Is pro as convinced of these accounts as the one’s he has provided? If not, why not? If eyewitness are all that is needed to verify a resurrection, then there have been many and the resurrection of Jesus is a dime a dozen. Furthermore, if resurrection is all it takes to prove one is God, it would seem Pro would have to believe there is more than one God. This creates a huge problem as the “Christian God” leaves no room for other God’s. Thus, either we have many God’s and the Christian God is a liar which supposedly he cannot be, or eyewitnesses to a resurrection do not a God make. Either way, the Christian God does not exist. Next my opponent argued that the Bible proves God is real. Surely my opponent can see that this argument is circular. Further, he claims the bible to be proven historical. I am not sure why he thinks that. Several parts of the bible are historically antithetical. Consider the flood. There is absolutely no evidence that such a flood happened. There is also not strong evidence for the story of Moses. Pro did not provide a source or validation for the claim that the bible is historical. Indeed he did not even present the argument until his final round. This is poor form for a debate. My opponent argued that God is the only plausible explanation for the universe. I have shown this argument to be fallacious on several levels. My opponent asks that even if the universe was 99.99% uninhabitable how does that support my argument. Well, it supports the negation of his argument that the universe is designed with us in mind. It supports negation of a perfect designer. It supports the idea that our existence is so rare as to be subject to probabilities that he can’t accept. He admitted early that there is no evidence that God is real. His words were "God was not created. He has always existed. We don't have evidence that he exists. .. " Clearly my opponent has not offered evidence in favor of his position.