The Christian god exists

I agreed to the definitions provided in round one but I didn't realize that meant I could never define a word again in this debate. That said, I just wanted to make it known that I would be merely showing strong evidence that God exists and it is up to the people to decide on what they believe. Note: I will be quoting my opponent first and then my response will be underneath the quote. The Axiological Argument: "This argument is not for a personal god. " Not true. The argument is for a moral God. And a moral God would have to be kind, caring, and would have to have some sort of contact with his creation (so the God is personal). After all, the things that a person creates reflects some of the attributes that the creator has. So the perfectly moral objective moral law would be a reflection of God's character. "Moral values can be argued for sans a god. " Subjective moral values could be argued for without a God but those are meaningless since they have no affect on people. "For instance, it could be argued that a moral conscience was selected for by an evolutionary process, and this would be supported by a rudimentary morality exhibited in many animals. " The problem with that thought is that evolution would make morality an instinct. Charles Darwin himself actually said that morality "is aboriginally derived from the social instincts, for both relate at first exclusively to the community. " The problem with this claim is that people have different instincts which would make morality subjective. And again, if morality is subjective, we could never tell people that they are doing something wrong. Another problem with this argument is that morality is usually that thing that decides between which instincts to follow. For example, if a person were to hear a gun shot and a cry for help, people would most likely have two instincts. One would be to run away from danger; another instinct would be to run to help the person. Morality might push a person to choose the weaker instinct, which is to choose to help the person instead of saving themselves. Plus there are other issues. .. For example: "If you say that your standard is evolving and getting better, then can you assert that it won"t evolve into something that contradicts what you believe now, thereby demonstrating that your moral beliefs now were really wrong? " (. https://carm.org...). "Perhaps, Pro is not aware of instances where animals attempt to protect or resuscitate other injured, dead, or dying animals" The video you showed me only provided an example of a hippo sticking some kind of dead animals head in its mouth. I don't know how this indicates that the hippo was trying to resuscitate the animal. It seems like humans are trying to see human qualities in animals even though the qualities aren't really there. "For Pro to explain proto morality, he would need to argue that animals live in fear of a god (and explain why a god would arbitrarily supply values to some animals and not others). " First you have to prove that animals do have a concept of morality. To me and the majority of people, it is obvious that animals do not have any real sense of morality. On a side note, God made humans in his image and did not make animals in his image. That is why humans are different than animals (in the sense that humans can be moral). The Teleological Argument: The first three arguments weren't meant to establish a Christian God. They were meant to establish a God's existence. I have to prove there is a God before I show you he is the Christian one. The Moral argument showed that the God would be personal/moral. The teleological argument shows that God is creative and intelligent. "This argument does not argue for the god of the Bible anymore than it argues for a god of Hinduism, Islam, or any other religion claiming a personal god. " Not sure if that is true. I can think of many ways to show that those God's aren't personal, moral, and etc. .. The God I am arguing for must be moral and creative as the past two arguments have showed. "The same argument could be made for the particular driver"s license number Pro has. " No. I don't think my opponent quite understands the odds. My opponent seems to think like this. .. If there is a lottery, someone must win (or having that exact license plate number). I think that is what my opponent is trying to say. The odds are a million to one. .. but someone still must win. But the problem is that not only does our universe win this lottery and therefore exists, but our universe is also life permitting. For example, if there was a lottery in which "billions and billions of white ping-pong balls were mixed together with just one black ball. .. and that if it's black you'll be allowed to live; if it's white, you'll be shot" (William Lane Craig). But you have to get the black ball five times in a row (putting the ball back each time) in order to win. Getting the black ball is no more probable then getting the white ball. But it is way more probable that you would get a white ball instead of a black one. So if the black ball is the first picked. .. and it happens five times in a row, something would feel rigged about it. That is why there is a God. The Cosmological Argument: "This argument is not for a personal god. The Christian god is personal according to the Bible. " Not even close to being true. The cause of the universe would have to be timeless (created time), moral (created morality), creative, personal (created people to have relationships), and etc. .. This God must be all of these things. The Christian God is all of these things. "That being said, virtual particles make a fine example to the contrary to the first premise. They pop in and out of existence randomly (even in a vacuum) and we can detect no discernible cause. " The problem with your response is that the vacuum is not nothing. So these particles are not coming from nothing. They are in fact coming from something. William Lane Craig states that "the vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws and having a physical structure. " Therefore you cannot claim that something has come from nothing. And besides, if something were to come from nothing, wouldn't that be happening all of the time? "Secondly, assuming the universe does have a cause this argument doesn"t explain why that cause must be a singular being as opposed to multiple beings, or a god as opposed to a force of nature. " Well, science supports that the universe had a cause. For example, the second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of energy (hence heading towards a heat death). In an eternal universe, it would have run out of energy by now. So since this hasn't happened, we know that the Universe had a beginning. Also, there is the discovery of red-shift in 1929. Basically, this discovery showed us that the universe is expanding which means if you were to go back in time, the universe would shrink and shrink until you got no universe. William Lane Craig says it better, he states that "as one traces the expansion back in time, the universe becomes denser and denser until one reaches a point of infinite density from which the universe began to expand. " As for the multiple God's part of your statement, perhaps this is a good time to use Ockham"s Razor: one should not multiply causes beyond necessity. Aside from that, I choose to believe in one God because Jesus said that there was one God and I believe him. But again, the first three arguments were meant to primary show that there is a God (at least one) and that he is moral, creative, timeless, and etc. .. The Existence of Jesus: "I have no problem conceding a teacher named Jesus lived in the first century. " Good, that will makes things easier in this debate. "He needs to establish Jesus was a god. This he has not done. " If I show you that he resurrected from the dead, that will show that he was a God (just like he claimed). "Gotquestions. org is not an objective source of information since the answers are generally provided anonymously and we have no way to determine if the people providing the answers are qualified in any way. " That source merely listed historians that lived during the time period that said that Jesus was a real person. Something went wrong with the link and I don't really know what happened. But that isn't really important anymore since you recognize that Jesus was a real person. "The mission statement of Reasonablefaith. org illustrates a Christian bias. " Every human is biased. But that doesn't mean that all people have no true to offer. Here is the correct link that gives evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...). I honestly don't know what happened to my links last round. Take a look at it. The best explanation for the empty tomb is that he resurrected from the dead. "Additionally, each of the links Pro provided in this argument went to a main page or to a page that did not support Pro's argument. " Yeah, I officially apologize for that. I really don't know what happened. .. "The New Testament being a source of evidence for a claim in the NT is circular. " No it is not. The Bible is composed of independent sources written by the people who knew Jesus. The gospels were written by eye-witnesses of the time period. They claimed that Jesus was God. If you do not believe them, please explain why we should have reason to doubt what they say. As for Jesus' existence, I don't have to provide that evidence any longer since you have already let me know that you don't need to be convinced of this. "Pro will need to provide corroboration from 1st century extra-Biblical sources to back these claims. " Why? We already have multiple accounts of what happened. Why do you have reason to reject those?