God most likely exists

Con, I already made this clear in round 1, we are debating if there most likely is a God or not. As Con, you do have to prove God most likely does not exist, just like I have to prove he most likely exists. "Whoever gives the most evidence supporting their side should get the majority of votes." Con has constantly said in every single round that there is no evidence of God. However, I have demonstrated there is overwhelming evidence suggesting God is most likely real. The evidence I have provided has been both scientific and scriptural. Con has not given valid reasons why my arguments would be invalid. In fact, even republicofdhar, an atheist in the audience, would not agree with you: "these are some of the best arguments I have heard in favour of God's existence, and that's coming from an atheist." Most importantly, even if Con proved the theory of evolution was a fact, he is not focusing on the most important thing, proving that God most likely does not exist. Just because of this, he is already losing this debate. In round three, I said Con had not yet given valid arguments defending the evolution theory. In response, he says. "I literally put a link in my argument". Here is his link he talks about: http://www.scientificamerican.com... It's basically about how the theory of evolution is possible through beneficial mutations. However, what this website doesn't tell you is all the information I have given about mutations in this debate which you can review in my round 1. So, yeah. Con has not yet given any valid argument defending the theory of evolution. Con also said there is no evidence for Jesus. That is off topic because I don't even believe Jesus is God. But here are some non-Christian sources of Jesus: http://www.bethinking.org... Con also does not fully understand how something could "always be there", so he rejects this idea. Should we really expect to fully comprehend a being so great that he could cause the vast, complex, and orderly universe to exist? Science tells us the sun's surface temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin or 9,941 degrees Fahrenheit. Do you reject this idea because you can't comprehend such an intense heat? We had a beginning, so we can't fully understand a being that has always been there. However, we know this must be true about the origin of all things. Think about it. Everything with a beginning has something causing it to begin. But can the origin of ALL things have a beginning? No! Nothing causes the origin of all things to begin, the origin of all things causes everything else to exist. How can it do that if it doesn't exist in the first place? So, it must have always been there. "And anyway, in your last argument you stated that farmers, shepherds, judges, etc. wrote the Bible, and now you're claiming that god wrote the Bible? Please explain this nonsense." It's not nonsense, really. I am explaining what the Bible writers were before they became Bible writers, and understand that a writer is not necessarily the same thing as an author. The Bible writers simply wrote what the author told them. There is nothing more to argue about this. Until you give evidence that God most likely does not exist, he most likely does. And, therefore, he is the one that has the authority to decide who is qualified to write his book, not you. Don't waste your characters trying to prove that the Bible writers were not qualified, because I certainly will not waste my characters on this anymore. I've already said what I have to say about this. Con's following arguments are about why doesn't God end suffering now and that we need to stop depending in a God that most likely does not exist. I already gave Con a link where he could find the answer to his question about suffering: http://www.jw.org... However, this is not relevant to the debate. It does not prove God most likely does not exist. It just shows Con's lack of Biblical knowledge. So, that argument is invalid. Your lack of knowledge about what God's word teaches is not evidence against it. And, concerning his statement that we shouldn't depend on a God that most likely doesn't exist, this is not a valid argument until you actually prove God does not exist. You can't? Then you shouldn't have accepted the debate. The rules were clear in round 1 after I gave my beginning arguments. Con believes my source about the Hebrew word "kanaph" was unreliable. Perhaps this other source will convince him: http://www.bluethread.com... (BEGINNING OF QUOTE) Kanaph: "Corner or extremity, perhaps of a garment. Also means wing." (END OF QUOTE) Con also asks how Noah could live to be 400 years old. For the same reason that the earlier descendants of Adam and Eve could live even longer and incest without worrying about mutations. Humans were closer to perfection. Those 400 years are nothing compared to what God originally purposed, that humans lived forever. Con argues homosexuality is not an imperfection because it is "normal". First of all, that is an opinion, not a valid argument. Secondly, to avoid this kind of confusion, I clearly explained that perfection has to do with God's will for his creation. God created man to be with woman. That is why only a man with a woman can reproduce. Adam and Eve sinned, they lost their perfection, and AFTERWARDS some people started being born with sexual attraction towards the same gender. Was this his purpose for his creation? No, and that is clear in the Bible. That is why it is an imperfection, and imperfections are temporary. Perfection has nothing to do with what you consider "normal". Oh, how nice. First he calls me a seven year old, and now he says I am, "what's wrong with the human race". How professional... And no, Con, I never suggested carbon dating was wrong. If it was, would I really use it as evidence for the Bible? How exactly does carbon dating prove the theory of evolution? Enlighten us, Con. I eagerly await your response. Thank You.