RESOLVED: Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist

Introduction Let us restate the definition of theology. Theology is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths. And philosophy (as defined in round one) is: the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Theology assumes that God already exists, whilst philosophy proves God. Theology is based upon Biblical values whilst philosophy is based on secular ones. Theology is, in short, not philosophy. The opp. is under the false delusion that it is. All his arguments regarding scripture usage are, in short, dismissed as ignoratio elenchi. The resolution is indeed NOT "the Christian God is more likely to exist" but "Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist" The opposition has strawman-ed the resolution. As philosophy is the study of reality and existence, then it would be more than logical to include history and empirical sciences in the dwindle. Objection One: Moses and MonotheismObj. One Moses was firstly the following:Obj. 1.1. Moses was an Egyptian, not a Jew. Accordingly to Biblical Scriptures, Moses was supposedly picked up by an Egyptian princess from the Nile, who accordingly named him Moses, after the Hebrew-based word called "picked out" Firstly, this is an absurd thing, to claim that an Egyptian Princess knew Hebrew. Secondly, son is Egyptian is in reality "Amose" If it were really an Egyptian Princess he took care of Moses, then it would be most likely to say that Moses was in reality an abridgement of Amoses. [1]Obj 1.2. Moses was also of noble origins, not of humble ones. Many ancient myths were often attributed to metaphors of what actually happened. Moses, as one would see, is part of this delusive never ending myth. Observe the following; in many cultures, there is a "hero myth" that includes the following factors:1. Some hero put in a basket and thrown down some river or abandoned in some mountain 2. After being found by someone often with humble origins, the same baby grows up3. After growing and meeting one's father through absurd adventures, he kills his father through or leads his people/followers to rebellion and takes control.There are many people or myths whose origins follow this pattern. Oedipus, Romulus, and Sargon (not the judge of course) are some examples of this. However, if these myths were all true, then there would not have been the many differences that exists as of now. For example, if this myth originated from one source, then Moses would have married his mother, or Moses would have been the creator of Rome. However, as this is false, then there must be a more rational explanation for this. It henceforth concluded that this is a mere metaphor; Moses was in reality Egyptian nobility, whose "river myth" was based upon the womb. The mother is equated to the basket; the taking out of him is equated to the day when he was born. If the mother were really an Egyptian Princess, then there is no possibility that he is an orphan. It is common sensical to assume that. This is the logic that must be employed to rationally come to such conclusions. [2] Obj 1.3. Moses was a follower of the Kult of Atens. This is a very true statement; as is proven before, Moses was a member of the Egyptian nobility. It was a custom for nobility to adopt the religion of the King worldwide. Moses lived during the rise of the Kult of Atens, and henceforth, he adopted the Aten-based religion. [2,3]With this said, let us easily refute the opposition's points. Obj 1.4. To say that since something is not present in another theory means that it is not based on it is inherently faulty. Christianity was based on Judaism, yet the former was much based on Jesus being the Messiah, whilst the latter teaches that Jesus might have been a prophet of God, but not a messiah. I am indeed no theologian, but one religion can be based in its basis upon another religion, and in its fundamental beliefs, but can differ in how it functions. Apart from this, there can be adaptations of other beliefs/systems of beliefs that would modify the main doctrine; for example, socialism was adapted into a more nationalistic background and proved to have created fascism. The opposition simply provides differences between both; but it has already been proven that Moses was an Egyptian, a Noble, and a follow of the Atenist Cult. Henceforth, it can easily be said that the idea of Monotheism developed from a person, not divinity.Objection Two: Flood and Other Theological Falsities ArguedObj. 2 Flood was indeed global. Let us take the following point; eretz here does not refer to lands only, but the whole globe. The Hebrew Creation Narrative in Genesis 1 proves this; for the word "eretz" was used when the Hebrews said "God created the world" Accordingly, 87.5% of the word "eretz" were used to describe the other. For example, the word eretz was used when God created the seas, and gave the world light. If the opposition thinks that the flood is local, then he has great imagination. Unfortunately, imagination cannot yield the truth; if the flood was local, then the following would have happened. Noah would not have required an ark to escape it, and birds would have flown away to foreign lands. Noah, as a shepherd herder, would not have built an ark if the floods were local; he would have just simply fled the lands. It is more than clear that the floos are indeed global. [4] Obj. 2.1 Let us take the YEC stance and prove that the Bible insists, via induction, not deduction, that the earth is 6,000+- years old. If we were to take the model used by Hebrew scholars, then one shall use the chronology Seder Olam Rabbah, a chronicle of events that happened "since the creation of the world" to prove it. The Seder provides a date of creation at ~3700BC and uses all the events that were present in the Bible to support it; it ends at Alexander's Conquest of Persia. Henceforth, it is easily said that the earth was indeed around 6,000AD. [5]Obj. 2.2 Neolithic societies were indeed not monotheistic. The absurdities of such claim are false; neolithic societies worshipped women as godesses, and bulls as God. In Neolithic Europe, society was Goddess centered, where women were worshipped and their council taken for granted. We know this because of the plethora of statues of women and bulls and the seeming worship of them. For no sane civilization, especially after the Bronze Revolution, would have built and carved many statues of women without worshipping them. [6]Objection Three: MiscObj. 3 Let us reply to the opposition's rebuttal to the "problem of evil" via a simple argument. 1. God is all-good 2. Evil exists 3. If Evil Exists, God either cannot stop (1) it from existing, (2) God does not want to, or (3) God does not know 4. If (1), then God is not omnipotent 5. If (2), then God is not omnivolent 6. If (3), then God is not omniscient If this does not suffice, then shall we say the following; if the opposition argues for a God that may be evil, or not all-powerful, or not all-knowing, then he has misinterpreted the terms and is arguing for another resolution inherently. Henceforth, such arguments stating that God has no need to prevent Evil in modern times would mean that he is not all good. If God has no abilities to do so, then he is not all powerful etc. This is the main argumentation that remains affirmed. Obj. 3.1 God murdered people worthlessly and mercilessly in the flood, even if the opposition affirms that such murders were just.Obj. 3.2 Jewish-Christian religions have survived for thousand and thousands of years does not prove anything else but that the religions are persuasive and often optimistic. Hinduism has survived for much longer than Judeo-Christian religions, and is still of considerable size; does the opponent go further to say that Hinduism's survival is only due to the mere fact of divine intervention? Buddhism has done the same, and is now getting increased recognition; is this because of divine intervention? How absurd is it to assume that since something has survived for a long time should its needs be true. Obj 3.4 Fallacies; throughout this whole debate, the opposition has cherry picked my arguments. He has strawman-ed my points, has ignoratio elenchi-ed his argumentation, and has affirmed his points through the usage of circular logic. He has committed causation-correlation fallacy in his argumentation about the Old-New Testament, has used anecdotes to prove his points, and has left all of my points affirmed, whilst claiming that I did not disprove his points. He has moved the goalpost, and his underlying logic throughout the whole debate is based upon circular logic. These are some of the fallacies that has been committed by the opposition and "philosophizing" that he further affirms in other rounds. [6] VOTING ISSUES:1. The opposition has left my main argumentation, the substance-mode relationship arguments, thoroughly affirmed. He has attempted piecemeal attacks on some of the propositions, and does nothing to refute it.2. The opposition has cherry picked my arguments. Unluckily for him, the cherry he picked are now rotten.3. His argumentation barely argues for or against the resolution. He only affirms his philosophical beliefs about what certainty is.4. LOGICAL FALLACIES EVERYWHERE!The resolution remains negated!Remember next round is a waive on pro's side as agreed in R1Citations:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://archive.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] https://answersingenesis.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...