The christian god exists and rules over the universe.

Part One: My defense of the 13 Arguments 1. The Ontological argument is a bit complicated. But another component of the argument is that because God exists in a world, that he must exist in all worlds as well (including our world) since he is omnipresent. But to address your rebuttals, here is what I have to say. Some "have insisted that asserting that an object exists can change the way that we conceive of it. If, having read about Socrates in the works of Plato, I discover that he is a real historical figure, i.e. that he exists, then this extra information will change the way that I think about him. Similarly, it is suggested, to say that God is not a mere figment of believers" imaginations, but actually exists, is to add something to the concept of God. Perhaps, then, Anselm"s comparison between a God that exists and a God that does not is possible, and the ontological argument survives Kant"s criticism." Source: http://www.existence-of-god.com... 2. You suggested that we may live in a multiverse. My counter is that this is the real world and not the comic book world. There is no evidence that suggests that there are multiverses. The evidence that suggests that God created it is the complexity of the designs of the universe. Scientist Kepler once built a diorama of the solar system and his friend saw it and asked who made it. Kepler in response said that it just came out of no where. The friend became frustrated and said he didn't believe that something that beautiful could just come out of no where. Kepler then smiled and said "exactly." I believe that his friend became a believer but I am not sure on that point. Nevertheless Christians look at the complexity of the Universe and see the work of a creator. The nested hierarchical tree is great evidence for God. See link for my debate on evolution: http://www.debate.org.... 3. You seem to agree that the Universe has a cause. But you failed to provide a cause for the Universe that is not God. I claim that God is the cause because only something personal, moral, creative, and complex could have created the universe. Why the Christian God? Because he is moral, creative, and etc... unlike all of the other Gods. See the link I gave for more details. 4. You agreed that "most people have an idea of what is right and wrong." This means that objective morality exists. You might think that all people just so happen to share the same opinion on morality...but that takes a lot of faith to believe in something like that. And the problem with your claim about societies providing morality is that it makes morality subjective. For example, no one could claim that Hitler was wrong because he merely had a different explanation for what morality is. Subjective morality takes away any meaning that morality has. Remember, opinions on what is moral do not create ethical standards. And by the way, Hitler was not a Christian. He was a liar that used Christian phrases to gain the trust of the people. He actually had a plan to completely destroy all of the Christians in Germany. 5. When analyzing texts, there is far more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for the existence of Julius Caesar. On another note, scholars are almost unanimous agreeing that Jesus was a real person. See think link (includes little information as requested) for more details: https://apologeticspress.org... We know that Jesus was real, that he died, and that there was an empty tomb. The Resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb. See the link I gave earlier if you think you have a better explanation. 6. Your response to this argument made it clear that you have not read the Bible. The Bible is evidence for God's loving nature and his desire to save humanity. Your twisted view of the Bible is a result from not reading it. The Bible also gives powerful evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus and the Bible does a good job proving that Jesus is God. You should really read the text before criticizing it. 7. You claim that "personal testimonies don"t count as evidence in most/this cases." You then give an example of a personal testimony not shared by many people at all (if any). You have to admit that it is significant that millions of people throughout history have claimed to have relationships with God. Why not ask them about their experience and question them on their faith? 8. You say that we merely do not know where these abstract entities come from. This is a cop out and also a demonstration of your faith that one day in the future an answer will appear magically. You could argue (as you did) that these entities were somehow within humans, but Craig's response is that "It seems plausible to think of numbers as dependent upon or even constituted by intellectual activity. But there are too many of them to arise as a result of human intellectual activity." This mathematical argument is not a bad one at all. 9. You have made no attempt to refute this argument. For the sake of the amount of characters I have left I am going to again tell you to read the link I provided. Here it is again: https://carm.org.... The answers to all of the questions you asked about the argument are in that link. But basically, the argument says that logic would exist with the existence or without them. Slick states that "but, since The Laws of Logic are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God." 10. Your quote says it all for me. You said that "Atheism does not explain anything." I completely agree with your statement. That is why the philosophy fails so miserably. Meanwhile, Christianity has answers to some of these complicated questions and gives humans reasons to live and to be moral. 11. The three examples you gave would not be considered miracles. An example of a miracle would be like the one I linked. Here it is again in case you didn't have time to read it: http://www1.cbn.com.... There are many more examples including people coming back to life. These miracles cannot be exampled by science. 12. The truth argument goes like this: (See link I gave earlier for more details) a. Only an infallible omniscience could absolutely establish the whole truth of a proposition. b. If there is no such thing as that absolute establishment, there are no wholly true propositions. c. "There exists no absolutely true proposition," being self-refuting, is necessarily false. d. Its opposite is therefore true: there exist absolutely, wholly true propositions. e. There is an infallible omniscience. The Atheist has to deny the existence of absolute truth to avoid recognizing the existence of God. But the problem is that every person does believe in absolute truth. Even the atheists that say they do not believe in absolute truth do. For example, when an atheist claims that thee is no absolute truth, that statement they just made is something they are claiming to be absolutely true. 13. Here is the link again: http://www.peterkreeft.com... Not sure why it did not work the first time. Part Two: Response to your Round Four defense 1. a. You do not understand the definition of the word faith. Faith does not always have to be based on evidence. But my faith in God is based on the evidence I provided. b. You clam that religion has done damage and this is true. But so have the nonreligious. See Joseph Stalin and Hitler for details. By the way, you claim that Christianity denies people certain rights. Can you explain where rights come from? If not from God, rights have to come from humans which makes the matter subjective and meaningless. c. Your arguments have not even attempted to disprove the existence of God. d. What created God you ask? God is a necessary being and therefore does not have a cause. Everything that exists contingently has a cause. But since God exist necessarily, he does not need a cause. 2. I have already addressed the miracle argument and won't go there again in this round. But...as for your cancer prayer example, have you tried asking God why he has not eliminated the disease? I have and he promised me that all suffering will end one day. I was also informed that our suffering on our short time on earth will be nothing compared to spending eternity in heaven. 3. Macroevolution is not even close to being a fact. See my debate on it for more details: http://www.debate.org... By the way, you posted the same link five times with your support of evolution and the link also includes 29 potential falsifications with each argument it presents. Nothing it fact when it comes to macroevolution. 4. Christianity did not come from pagan ideas. The link you gave did not prove anything and merely explained that some similarities between the philosophies. But the idea of a God suffering and dying for humanity is completely original. Sources: https://carm.org... 5. The problem with your link to the catholic site was that it did not list the statistics you gave. No evidence has been provided to show that the religious are more dangerous then the nonreligious. 6. The example you gave in order to show murder in the Bible was another example of your misrepresenting the Bible. The verses you gave (I happen to know them) were showing the limitations God put on slave owners. God punished the slave owners for the things they did wrong. As for your other example of hypocrisy (did you mean to say contradiction?)... The Bible verse says "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." In others words, the water came and then planets sprung up. Then man was created. Thanks for debating!