The Judeo-Christian God's Existence Is Just As Likely As Any Other God's Existence

Given my opening round, I think it's clear I made an attempt to negate the resolution within practical constraints. Indeed, the resolution states I must show God is more likely that all others in the whole of history. However, I had hoped my opponent would see the impossibility of such a task given our character limits. Thus, I chose to focus on the ones he mentioned, expecting him to follow up with more gods in later rounds. I even explain why I could only argue a subset of gods, and yet he accuses me of dodging the question. While he is technically right, he is essentially hiding behind an impossible resolution so he does not have to worry about actually debating anything. To further illustrate this, he does not offer any arguments whatsoever as to why the Christian God is as likely as any other god. He is Pro in this debate is he not? I have offered my counter-evidence and he has offered only rebuttals, and weak ones at that. He starts by saying that a 5% difference in the reliability of the Bible versus the Iliad is not proof. Indeed, it is not; I never said it was. I am certain the resolution states "more likely" rather than "most definitely. " The reason I mentioned textual accuracy early in my argument is because it is the weakest of all evidence. I admit that. But it is one piece of evidence (no matter how weak) combined with the evidence I provide further. In other words, I mount the evidence up in my entire argument to show that the Christian God is at least "more likely" to exist than the others. I only have to show "more likely" to win, and I explained that in my opening round when I pointed out that more evidentiary support is a criterion for "more likely. " Since he did not question this assertion, I can only assume he agrees. He goes on to point out that belief in a God does not make it more likely. Again, this is but one piece of evidence not to be treated as though it stands completely alone. The fact that people continue to convert to Christianity shows its believability—its cogency—over and above other religions. While it's not certain proof, it shows that at best Christianity is more likely to be true than Greek mythology. Even if it is false, on balance, Christianity is more believable and, therefore, more likely than mythology. It's important to note that attacking two pieces of evidence does not refute my position. He did not rebut my evidence regarding authorship, the differences in the natures of the gods, or the presuppositional shortcomings of mythology. In short, I offered five pieces of evidence, and he only attacked my two weakest ones, and even then not very well. ----- My opponent asked me three questions: "Also in the future, if another God becomes more believed than the Judeo-Christian God, does that mean that God is then more likely to exist? " Not necessarily, it depends on the other evidence as well. It would certainly mean that, on balance, the Judeo-Christian God has evidence against it rather than for it. This is one piece of evidence, however, and I offered more than just this one. All the evidence must be evaluated together, not in compartmentalized pieces. "If the Judeo-Christian God exists over all other gods, why are the jews and christians any more blessed than people of other world religions? " The term "blessing" is ambiguous. Do you mean material wealth or personal happiness? The greatest blessing of all, in my view, would be eternal life in heaven. In that context, Christians are more blessed than others having received grace and salvation made possible in Christ. "Why does this god not make his existence more evident? He has shown no proof that he exists over gods of every other major world religions. If he is the head-honcho why not make it clear once-and-for-all that all others are false idols? " Presuming God exists, this is not a question I have access to. Why and how God chooses to reveal himself in the way that he has is ultimately a mystery that belongs only to Him. I suppose he could show up right now and settle the matter, but if he is God as described in the Bible, then it wouldn't be a good event for most since he would bring absolute judgment with him. The Bible gives us some glimpse into why he's revealed himself as he has: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. " (Romans 1:18-20) The Apostle Paul claims that God has made himself sufficiently known, insofar as men will not be without excuse. Having use the Bible to answer this question, I'm sure my opponent will object. But the God I am defending is defined by the Bible, and this is the only way to answer the question without being arbitrary. ----- In conclusion, my opponent's second round was not utilized to his fullest benefit. He attacked two pieces of evidence and three other, much stronger pieces of evidence unexamined. He accuses me of not fulfilling a resolution that, for all practical purposes, cannot be fulfilled in a DDO debate. Lastly, he doesn't offer any evidence in support of his own position. I ask the readers to use their judgment in determine who has been the better debater. With that, I give the floor back to my opponent for his closing round.