It is better to believe in the God of the Bible than to be an Atheist

This is the last round of the debate, so I'm going to focus on the points that are most relevant to judging the debate. First, I would like to point out that my opponent never linked to any sources, whereas I did, so I think it is clear that the points for sources should go to me. As far as the arguments go, my opponent has rested his case on Pascal's wager, which I have parodied with the Islam and anti-God analogies. One reason these parodies are relevant is that it is a basic principle of critical thinking that if a line of reasoning can lead to two or more mutually exclusive conclusions, then that line of reasoning is invalid. If Pro's argument in round 1 is a good argument for being a Christian, then my Islam parody is a good argument for being a Muslim, and my anti-God parody is a good reason for being an atheist. So either everyone should simultaneously believe in all three of Christianity and Islam and atheism, or Pascal's wager fails. My anti-God analogy is relevant for an additional reason, which is that it cancels out the alleged threat to atheism from Christianity. I presented this formally earlier, as follows: 1. Two outcomes with opposite utilities (e.g., +1 and -1) and an equal probability of occurring cancel out. 2. The Christian God and anti-God have opposite utilities. 3. The Christian God and anti-God have an equal probability of existing. 4. Therefore, the two possibilities cancel out. Pro seems to have completely missed the point of this argument, because he responds by saying that it's irrelevant (which it obviously isn't - it's just a variant on a standard rebuttal to Pascal's wager) and that an atheist cannot consistently believe in anti-God (which is an irrelevant point I've already addressed). To his credit, Pro has tried to address premise 3 to some extent, but he has not met his burden of proof for the claim that the Christian God is more credible than anti-God. He has never presented an argument for the existence of the Christian God - all he has done is gesture vaguely at unspecified "historical evidence." In the context of a debate, this is inappropriate, because I do not know what he thinks I need to refute, and I do not have the time or space here to write a book refuting everything anyone has ever thought supported the existence of the Christian God. He is Pro, so he is supposed to have the burden of proof to present the evidence required to defend the resolution. Since Pro never specified what "historical evidence" he thinks I need to refute, I assumed he was referring to the miracles in the Bible, which I rebutted with Hume's classic objection to the argument from miracles. [1] I'll quote the paragraph I wrote explaining this argument earlier, since it's pretty critical: "A miracle will always be less likely than a natural explanation because it is a violation of a law of nature. The laws of nature are generalizations that all of our experience supports - almost by definition, there is nothing that we have more evidence for than the laws of nature. This means that a miracle would have to be overwhelmingly well supported in order to overcome the evidence for the law of nature that it contradicts. However, no miracle report actually meets that high standard of evidence, including the miracles in the Bible. They always happen in the distant past, where we cannot check them, and they tend to happen in primitive and credulous times and places. Therefore, the rational conclusion is that the miracles in the Bible did not happen." Pro's only rebuttal to this is that the Big Bang theory "contradicts all the laws of nature." He provides no evidence for this claim, so I reject it out of hand. The Big Bang theory just says that billions of years ago all matter in the universe was compressed into a very small area, followed by a rapid expansion. This claim isn't in conflict with any of the laws of nature. At the end of his most recent post, Pro writes: "The atheist has a 50/50 chance of escaping accountability where as the Bible believer is 100% safe whether right or wrong compared to the Atheists position." This only shows that he does not understand my arguments. The Christian is no more or less safe than the atheist. If the atheist is wrong and the Christian God exists, then the atheist will go to hell. However, if the Christian is wrong and anti-God exists, then the Christian will go to hell. Both the atheist and the Christian are in the same position - the probabilities cancel out, as I said above. In conclusion, I would like to thank Pro for an interesting and civil debate. [1] http://www.bartleby.com...