God Is Real

To try and address the questions that Pro has put forth I will lay out three major ideas that correspond with them and wait for Pro to respond to them. 1. Various Different Religions Exist in the World My point is simple. My opponent in this debate has argued for god inquiring that "Why would someone just make up a book about him? ". Yet we see many different religions in the world: Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, and much much more. All the major religions all have their sacred texts. By Pro's logic every religion in the world must be correct. Why would someone write about the Hindu gods if they were false? Why would there be mythology around all the greek/roman gods? The Norse gods? Perhaps we should reconsider whether or not those religions are indeed false. If books exist about a god then that god must. .. exist? Lets look at my opponents argument on a logical scale. p1. Writing books takes a lot of time p2. To invest a lot of time into something means that you wouldn't be making it up. p3. Sacred text is a collection of books. c. Sacred text cannot be made up I recommend my opponent not only to read other sacred texts (for not all gods can be real and at least one of the sacred texts must be false; thus this argument is valid) but also to explore the realm of fiction novels. Lots of people write books about stuff that is not real. Many do so for money, some for various other reasons. Why would someone write a book concerning god? Perhaps they truly believed in god. But a belief does not equal fact. 2. Trips to heaven are lies I recommend my opponent to look at the following article: . http://www.theguardian.com... A boy made up a near death experience claiming to have came back from heaven. And you ask why someone would make up books about religion? Here is your example. Now how can you claim the validity of other heaven trip stories? How do you know they are not lying? Here is an example of where it is known that he lied. Others who have cashed in on the money from books like these will obviously not come forward. 3. There is no evidence for the existence of a god. The burden of proof in this debate lies on Pro. Pro has not proved that god exists. He brought up a mere argument of "Someone wrote a long book; ergo the book holds truth". Sadly the world does not operate in that manner. There has been no recent evidence of god existing in recent years. My opponent brought up something that happened 2000 years ago- Jesus dying on the cross. Is that how far back he has to go for evidence of a creator? Why no evidence now? What makes 2000 years ago so special? The world functions perfectly without the need for a god. The origin of life can be explained with theories that do not require a god. Many things the bible claimed- like the Adam and Eve story- have been proven false. My opponent may quickly jump and point out "That's just a metaphor! ", however why would the author just make something like that up right? There are many things in the bible that have been proven to have never happened. There is still no evidence for the existence of a god. I can get into a philosophical debate about the existence of one, however the only points my opponent brought up includes two pieces of evidence dated way back. I urge my opponent to please present some concrete evidence of a god in the next round of the debate so that I can further this point. I will end with saying that I have explained the logical errors my opponent initially made and I have countered all his arguments. I countered them through my main ideas: No evidence for a god, there are many religions with equally long books, and many people lied about religious miracles and experiences for money. My opponent did not produce strong evidence, but rather weak claims that are easy to refute. Your move Pro. Please provide more compelling arguments for me to go against.