Open Debate Challenge

This will be short. I think my adversary has failed to read my argument, and this was a waste of an hour. He claims I failed to refute any of his arguments, but had he read the rules he could clearly see that I am not allowed to respond to arguments until this round. I will offer some brief rebuttalsJesus is historicalThis is probably the easiest to refute. If Jesus did the works he claimed, there would have been a variety of secular scholars that recorded these works. There are a drastically small number of secular scholars that ever even acknowledged Christ doing miracles. How do we know Rome existed? There are thousands of documents and books along with notations all throughout history that show us this. With Jesus there is such a minuscule number that it is hardly accurate. Even the ones that mention his divinity are in question. One that sticks out is Josephus. Josephus recorded some miracles of Jesus, but was dubbed a non credible source for the information that he recorded. Some of the events he described and wrote about were shown to be false. One of which is the massacre at Masada. He essentially claimed it was a mass suicide, but further archaeological findings show that there was signs of a war. It is way more in-depth than this but I do not feel the need to go into this due to my contenders limited response. [1]Disciples dying for no reasonsI am assuming my adversary is referring to the disciples dying if Jesus was not the savior. I am going to save my self the trouble and disregard this because no evidence was even cited to support this. This is just a claim my adversary makes , and one that I do not want to waste the time refuting due to him not bothering to post a worthwhile response. Refuting this would waste almost the entire rest of this argument and is not necessary for me to win.Personal TestimoniesPeople see Christ for the same reason the see the three eyed pig monster. They are either crazy, or their mind really wants to see him. If you want something bad enough you would be surprised how chemicals in your brain can work to allow it to happen. Granted a personal testimony is an invalid source of evidence to begin with but chemical reactions, and scientific explanations can almost be found in every case. Watch MakerMy entire argument from the previous round refutes this. Conclusion.There is no need for a personal creator or Christian God. Science can explain how everything came to be, how we exist, and even why we exist. Adding God to this is adding an unnecessary variable to the equation. Without the need for a God, or reason to have a God, there is a high possibility that God does not exist. In addition to this I have shown how and why we can logically assume there is no God. I have shown how the universe can come into existenceHow matter can come from nothingAlso the argument from probability. Every time we look at this case, we can see there is no need for a God. If all the factors show there is no need for God, the next most logical process is to assume that one does exist. I would go in depth more but my adversary has failed to produce any viable argumentsI would like to thank Con for this debate, even if his responses were limited.[1] http://www.pbs.org...