There's as much evidence that Wotan and Lord Krishna exist as there is that Yahweh exists

Argument ad numerum The sharp people who have been reading this debate have probably already noticed that I made no such argument. I said: "This is a pure assertion which is rejected by 2.1 billion Christians in the world" He says that I said: "asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is to be correct." My point was that hes assertion is completely ridiculous by itself. The only way one could interpret my point the way my opponent has, is if my opponent had backed up his assertion which he at that point didn't. Bible contradictions a)"Matthew traces the descendants of from David to Jesus via 28 generations." b)"In the Gospel of Luke, he traces the descendants from David to Jesus via 41 generations." First, it is not uncommon for the generations in one line of descent to increase more rapidly than in another. Second, and more important, in Jewish thinking son might mean "grandson," or, even more generally, "descendant" (as "Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham," Matt. 1:1).Similarly, begat (rendered by the patter "'X' [was] the father of'Y'" in the New International Version, Matt. 1:2-16) does not necessarily mean "was the actual (that is, immediate) father of" but instead may simply indicate real descent. Just the fact that Matthew casts his list in the form of three groups of fourteen generations suggests this was a convenient though arbitrary arrangement from which some generations may have been omitted. In fact, it can be shown that Matthew's list has omissions (cf. 2Kings 8:24; 1 Chron. 3:11; 2 Chron. 22:1,11; 24:27; 2 Kings 23:34; 24:6). Omission of generations in biblical genealogies is not unique to this case, and Jews are known to have done it freely. The purpose of a genealogy was not to account for every generation,but to establish the fact of an undoubted succession, including especially the more prominent ancestors. Websites to visit (which probably have extra arguments I approve of): http://www.bcbsr.com... http://www.lifeofchrist.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Please elaborate and explain more clearly your "inconsistency" argument because I'm a bit confused. Sorry about that, if there were less rounds left I wouldn't have done this but for the sake of convenience and time I decided to ask. Is God evil You said in the comment section: "Genesis 19: 7-8 - 'I pray you brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out onto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof' This is highly misogynistic and is condoning rape. You believe the almighty creator of the universe would personally write this? Imagine if this was preached in churches!" Rebuttal: Genesis 19 is indeed preached in churches and here is commentary written down: The wickedness and depravity of the men of Sodom.(Edit:This is the title) Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof." And they said, "Stand back!" Then they said, "This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door.(Edit:This is what they first read) (Edit:Below you can see the points the priest shall cover) a. Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us: These citizens of Sodom clearly came to homosexually abuse and rape these two visitors. That is a shocking demonstration of depravity, but we are just as shocked at the willingness of Lot to give up his daughters to the mob as we are at the sinful desire of the mob itself. b. I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish: The offer is horrible and cannot be justified. We understand it a little more when we consider the low place of women in the pre-Christian world and the very high place of any guest in your home. It was understood a guest was to be protected more than your own family.(Edit: Spread the Word !!!!!!) c. That we may know them carnally: The sin of the men of Sodom is plainly connected to their homosexuality. There is no doubt the Bible declares homosexual conduct is sin (Romans 1:26-28). I think its clear that my opponent has never read the Bible nor does he understand what the Bible is hence he thinks that God approved rape, now that you have read what was actually said by the Bible please don't go to Atheist websites and assume that what they say is true instead consider Christianity I'm not asking for conversion but that you would start to hear the Christian opinion. When I said that "you just don't get it", I was joking about your obvious ignorance also I don't believe in the Quaran but Ill never support the arguments you made there against it.Finally the Isaiah quote has nothing to do with God creating evil (evil is the absence of God) but the point is that there are not two gods or forces in heaven, one good and one bad, as in a dualistic "yin and yang" sense. "Cyrus was a Persian, and Persian had a dualistic concept of God and th world. Their good god they called Ahura-mazda and the evil god Angra-mainya. The former had created the light, the second the darkness. While this is irrelevant I think that I should make your scriptural knowledge obvious. You were honest about your mistake of calling the bible an article. I hope you will also admit that you obviously didn't bother to verify your arguments using the Bible and Christian websites. Is Yahweh hiding ? You argument was one which only required an explanation because it involved the mind of God. It would be valid if: 1.I couldn't think of a response 2.Bible contains contradictions 3.My argument contradicts other statements in the Bible "people who have had no access to the Bible supposed to have faith in something they know not of?" This is a different argument though similar. So I don't have to answer this but I'll give you a link nevertheless: http://www.godandscience.org... The Resurrection "Moreover, the fact that Christians would rather suffer and die then renounce their faith is not evidence that their faith is correct, only that they think it is." They knew whatever or not they saw Jesus hence they knew whatever or not their suffering is vain or not. I already mentioned two non biblical sources "Pliny's Letters to Trajan X, 96" and " The Annal, XV, 44" He didn't even scratch the surface of what I've already presented (for example the empty tomb) but he said he'll continue on round 3 and I'm fine with that. I feel a great need to remind you that this is not whatever or not Atheism is more likely than Christianity but this debate is about Wotan and Lord Krishna being as likely as Yahweh. Furthermore I would like to remind you that I have presented only one argument which isn't enough hence I'll present another one. I ask you to find something as believable as the resurrection (concerning the proof of Krishna and Wotan) and if you don't I win, funnily enough I would still win if you proved the Bible as inconsistent but couldn't give good evidence for Krishna and Wot