Con (Theist) Will Not Fulfill His/Her Burden of Proof in Establishing The Existence Of God

Let's get right into it. There is much to say and not as much space, so I shall attempt to be as concise as possible and elaborate where I feel necessary. Firstly, the use of inductive reasoning by no means de-legitimizes the claim. Scientific theories themselves are products of inductive reasoning and ". .. when several sound arguments lead to agreement on the same conceptual model, the odds against the theory being wrong become so extremely small that for all practical purposes there can be no other answer. " (. http://dinosaurtheory.com...) I appreciate Pro's acceptance of the definition of a Jewish G-d for the purpose of the debate; frankly, proving that omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence are not contradictory a) often involves a lot of philosophical and semantic-ridden discussion and, b) doesn't prove that G-d does exist, just that He can under those definitions. In response to the 'dangerous presuppositions', I'd like to note that many questions concerning reliability of the Torah have actually been addressed within the Kuzari Principle itself. Given that at there is never an individual responsible for transmission of the Torah after the revelation at Sinai, lends tremendously to its credibility. This is because, assuming it is a lie, there are three possibilities for what form the lie took: 1) Past lie - this is where the lie is placed in a past setting, i. e. , 'G-d spoke to your ancestors at Mount Sinai'. 2) Present lie - this lie is placed in a present setting, i. e. , 'G-d just spoke to you at at Mount Sinai'. 3) Future lie - this would take the form of 'One day G-d will speak to you or your children at Mount Sinai. ' Past lie is problematic because it is easily verifiable. At whatever point in Jewish history (assuming the revelation is false) someone, say Moses, tries to convince a few followers that their ancestors heard G-d speak, they can check with their parents and grandparents to confirm that there indeed was (or wasn't) a tradition of mass revelation. If, in fact, it was simply fabricated, then the lie falls away. In order to convince his followers, Moses would then have to come up with an explanation of why their family members don't remember it (a natural disaster killed off all those present at the revelation, they all forgot, the Torah was lost, etc. ). Note that we do not have a record of any such gap or period of 'misinformation'. Also note that this scenario requires a point in Jewish History where transmission IS dependent on an individual. Present lie is equally problematic because, once again, there are no periods in Jewish history where we rely on the testimony of a single person for transmission. (www. odyeda. com/English/JewishTimeline. html) So, the possibility of Moses managing to convince 600,000 men that they just heard G-d speak are remote, to say the least. Future lie is not a possibility because of the form with which it is presented. The Jewish nation does not believe that G-d WILL speak to them, rather, that he DID. My opponent also claims that this same argument could also be used to support other religions. That premise is incorrect, however. Judaism is unique in its mass revelation - a revelation where G-d Himself is known to have spoken with everyone present. No other religion claims mass revelation with an uninterrupted timeline. I gave an example in the previous round of the Mormon faith, where despite a tradition of G-d appearing to multiple people, the claim is invalid because we only know these stories on the account of Joseph Smith, an INDIVIDUAL. As Pro mentions, the splitting of the moon is also a religious miracle, but is also one that has little validity. The Koran, is based off of the divine revelations of Mohammad - an INDIVIDUAL. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) The base of Christianity starts when Paul (yes, another individual) has a vision of the resurrected Jesus and converts. Paul is also the originator of much of the New Testament. A clear theme throughout religion in general is a single person claiming divine revelation. Judaism is the only religion that doesn't fall into that category. Moving onto Pro's arguments concerning skepticism and naturalistic explanations, my opponent makes some very interesting arguments. A closer look at the question, 'What is more likely? That the natural order of the universe has been suspended in my favor? Or that I have made a mistake? ', reveals circular logic. The implication of the question essentially precludes the possibility of a supernatural event occurring in the first place. Much of the argument assumes that supernatural events by definition cannot occur at all. On the contrary, as stated in the previous round, natural events are reoccurring. But never has another sizable nation claimed to witness G-d firsthand and lived to talk about it. If, in fact, the revelation could be explained naturally, then history should be replete with stories of numerous nations experiencing mass revelation. Many of the explanations Pro gives in regards to possibilities of the origins of Judaism were already addressed in the previous round (in the different sets of circumstances I present), however, I will go over them again. 1. This is essentially 'Circumstance 3', where the myth is adapted over time. I decrease the validity of such an argument by showing the precise transmission of the Torah throughout the generations. And once again, the problem with this myth growing in validity over time is the ability of all involved Jews to verify such stories with their parents and grandparents. Such a lie can be 'checked', so to speak. 2. I've explained already in this round how one individual starting the myth is not a possible explanation for Judaism. There has not been any point in Jewish history where transmission is dependent upon one person. 3. Once again, the problem here is the possibility of verification. A claim of such magnitude can surely be verified and this is an integral point. Assuming the story is NOT true, then the lie could never propagate. It would fall by the wayside. Other myths that survived, however, COULD NOT be verified because the claim rested on the testimony of exceedingly small numbers of individuals. The Miracle of the Sun was not an event I was familiar with, so I spent some time researching it. It's interesting to note that the newspaper reporters in attendance collecting testimonies didn't see anything themselves. There was no mass claim of experiencing G-d, rather, reports involved the sun shifting and changing colors in a seemingly 'unnatural' way. However, reports varied tremendously - there wasn't a unified statement of what had occurred. Scientists said the visions could just have occurred by staring for a prolonged period of time at the sun. It's interesting to note that the event was only accepted as a miracle by the Roman Catholic Church 13 years after it's occurrence. And Pope Pius XII, an INDIVIDUAL, claimed to have seen it from the Vatican Gardens. The event as a religious symbol certainly meets the standards of possible, if not probable, falsification. In regards to epistemic probability, I'd like to point out that though no one has proven a miracle occurred through the natural laws of science it's probably because a miracle defies the laws of natural science. Once again, this is circular reasoning. Assuming a miracle must fit in with the laws of science is a prerequisite for such an argument. You can't use a tool to create something that cannot be created by that tool. Pro brings up the story of Joshua and the standing sun. Firstly, there are other cultures in existence that have records of the event taking place. (. http://sunnyokanagan.com...), (. http://www.icr.org...) Secondly, I didn't bring that up because the story alone doesn't prove the exclusivity of a Jewish G-d. Considering the revelation happened before the Sun was suspended for a day, and the revelation is a proof of a Jewish G-d, I use that as my primary source. In addition, the story of revelation was a) witnessed by the entire Jewish nation and b) is a story within Judaism where it is specified to initiate a chain of transmission. Such a chain is not true of the story of Joshua. (. http://philosophyofjudaism.blogspot.co.il... - see G1 and G2) Any seeming inconsistency within the Torah is there to imply things aren't as clear-cut as they seem. The first 'inconsistency' Pro points out explains that Adam was originally created as an hermaphrodite , and then split into two. (. http://www.jewishanswers.org...) As for the questionable integrity, saying that the proof is 'an illusion the Jewish people must believe and cannot afford to live without,' also presupposes its false-ness. That would be like me saying any evidence scientists have for evolution is because they can't afford to live without it. If the evidence for mass revelation of the Jewish people is true, then it's true - not because they can't afford to live without it, but because it's true. If it's not true, then the argument will fall by the wayside on its own. I'm not really sure how some 'loud and deceptive' person could have managed to convince the entire Jewish nation that they had just experienced G-d firsthand. The burden of proof is for me to establish evidence for the Jewish G-d, and I think I've enumerated quite a bit on how this could not have been a deception. If Pro notices any arguments were not responded to, feel free to point that out as it was not my intention to skip them over. I'm concluding with 3 characters, so there's not room for much else, anyway. I'd like to thank Pro for his arguments; they were well-thought out and provided plenty of extra research for me. :D Looking forward to your next argument.