It is more reasonable to believe in the Christian God than not to

Thank you so much, Pro!Sodom and Gomorrah Pro has submitted what he considers to be evidence of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. His source is biased. Not only is it from a Christian source, but one more interested in the value of this myth for the purpose of proselytizing rather than being interested in archeology. That being said, I searched for any mainstream archaeologists who verify this, but I was unable to find any mention of this outside of religiously biased websites such as the one Pro provided. I noticed in one of Pro’s later arguments he suggests archaeologists are biased against Christianity, but seeing as how there are Christian archaeologists, that is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Christian archaeologists would be extremely interested in validating this finding if it exists, but none have confirmed this finding – at least not in any legitimate manner. Also, Ron Wyatt is an “adventurer and former nurse anesthetist”. Amusingly, he also claims to have found the Ark, the resurrection site of Jesus, the Tower of Babel, and the site of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, among many others.[3] He is completely committed to pseudo archeology, and is hardly qualified to be presented as an expert. My point stands. The plagues Again, Pro has used a source which is less than impressive. An unknown person suggests that the Ipuwer Papyrus is an extra Biblical account for the plagues and the Exodus of the Hebrews. We do not know if this person has any credentials or is even qualified to speak on this subject as an expert. However, in order to be throrough, I searched for this papyrus, and found that there are many differences between the Exodus account and this papyrus. The main discrepancy would be that it discusses an invasion instead of an exodus. Commenting on such attempts to draw parallels, he writes that "all these approaches read Ipuwer hyper-literally and selectively" and points out that there are also conflicts between Ipuwer and the biblical account, such as Ipuwer's lamentation of an Asiatic (Semitic) invasion rather than a mass departure. [1] Also, experts reject it as an Exodus account: The association of the Ipuwer Papyrus with the Exodus as describing the same event is generally rejected by Egyptologists.[1] My point stands. Exodus Pro has used yet another questionable source. He has used a Biblical site to establish a Biblical view is true. This is simply a biased assessment. As I mentioned last round, mainstream archaeologists have given up the search for evidence of the Hebrews wondering the desert for 40 years as a fruitless search, and these are the experts. However, to be accommodating, I found a Biblical source which acknowledges there is no evidence. “There has been a lot of speculation on the route of the Exodus and why the traditional site hasn't yielded any archaeological evidence. After all, if two million people wander in a desert for forty years, you'd think that at least something would be found to support it. But, nothing at all has been unearthed in the Sinai Peninsula supporting the Biblical account of the Exodus.” [2] In addition to this, the pottery found in the Sinai desert is from about 4500 years ago, which is a millennium too early for the Exodus account. If we hold the Flood happen between 4000-5000 years ago, then we are advocating the Israelites were wandering the desert before the flood, or during it. Needless to say, it would be a serious plot twist if God’s chosen people were washed away with the rest of depraved mankind in the flood. These are obvious flaws with the ‘evidence’ Pro has put forth. My point stands. The Flood I found this answer refreshing in its honesty. Unfortunately for Pro, faith is an inadequate substitute for evidence. In fact, by definition, faith is belief without evidence, and this is not rational. Especially when evidence is reasonable to expect and a lack of evidence argues against your faith. Given this reasonable expectation of evidence for such a major event, we can conclude it didn’t happen as stated, or that it didn’t happen at all. Let us explore those options: 1. It didn’t happen – the god inspired account is wrong, and this is incongruous with a perfect omnipotent, omniscient being. The story (and possibly the Christian god) is a myth. 2. It was misinterpreted by the audience (humans) – The Bible is unclear and this is incongruous with a perfect being capable of communicating the universe into being. God is not great, or he does not exist. Either way you choose to look at it, this points to the Christian god not existing with the characteristics claimed, or not existing at all. My point stands. On a side note, If Pro chooses to believe the flood story because it is in the Bible and cites the Bible as evidence of the Flood, then this is circular reasoning. His claim and his ‘proof’ cannot come from the same source. Using logical fallacies to arrive at a conclusion is not reasonable. I only mention this since it seems he needs no evidence to believe - only the claim from the Bible is necessary for his belief. Flood Myths Flood myths from other cultures mentioning other gods are not an argument for the Christian god. If it can be said they make a claim for a god which is not YHWH, then it is irrelevant to this debate. This is still cherry picking the data, sir. It is a logical fallacy. Historical accuracy I have already conceded that the Bible is historical in part. However, I cannot agree that the Bible is without flaws historically. For instance, camels were not domesticated in Egypt until 930-900BC [4], and Abraham who lived between 1500-2000BC was said to have had domesticated camels in Genesis 24:11. Basically, Abraham would have domesticated camels as much as a millennium before they existed. There are many other mentions of camels, and these anachronisms are historically inaccurate. As far as prophecy is concerned, Pro has merely asserted an earlier date for the composition of Daniel directly contradicting the accepted scholarship of 165 BCE as the composition date. There is really nothing for me to argue against here, since my original point backed by scholarship has not been refuted.. The Bible is internally consistent/And most attacked 1. There was no response to my rebuttal of Pro's internally consistent argument.2. If Pro cannot accept the hypothetical example of his argument for another holy book, then he acknowledges it is unreasonable to accept his "we hated it, but now we love it' argument for the the Bible as valid. The Bible and Science Pro dismisses scientific evidence in favor of his beliefs. The fossil record clearly shows birds evolving from land animals and there is very little objection to this in the scientific community. It seems Pro has fallen back on magic to explain the discrepancy in the Bible, and that is an unfalsifiable, contrived explanation based in special pleading (another fallacy), not to mention circular reasoning – he accepts the Bible’s claim as evidence of the claim. Also, Pro has dropped my rebuttal of Jacob and the genetic absurdities.Back to you, sir! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://carm.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...