The Christian God is the likeliest of all the gods from thoughout time.

I will only respond to Con's claims.1 & 2. Con has really made no argument here, only that "I can't do something so I can't believe someone else when they say they can. " As I have already indicated, God's claims to perfection don't make God less believable than any other. God could be a liar but still exist, or God could really be perfect and still exist. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a myth. Extraordinary claims require reasonable evidence, just like anything else. [1] I can claim to be absolutely perfect. That does not mean my existence is called into question, only my claims. If Con cannot see this then maybe debating is not the best use of his time. The ability to see the opposing viewpoint and understand why someone might believe that is essential for coming up with responses to them.3. Con has committed a strawman fallacy by arguing a point that simply isn't true, one that is easier to refute than the actual true statement. God doesn't condemn anyone for having their own mind, in fact God gave us our minds and wants us to use them. Con has confused physical repercussions for eternal ones. A child rapist can go to Heaven if they are genuinely repentant of their actions. This means they are truly sorry and will not do it again. However, they still must pay the consequences of their actions, and rightly so. They should not be set free from prison early simply because they had a conversion. I have no justified anything; this is how God's justice system works. I would urge Con to actually read the Bible before attacking it (he claims to have read it but his arguments show otherwise). Additionally, Con has not shown by whose standards a "genuinely good person" is good which would not justify them going to Hell. A person who goes to Hell rejected God, so God is giving them what they want, in a way. An eternity without God. But on top of the eternal separation, they also receive punishment for the sins they have committed. Christian theology is not based on blackmail. Christians are good not because we don't want to go to Hell, but because it's the right thing to do.4. The type of creation (supernatural or natural) is irrelevant. Con's reasoning is flawed. God, even acting supernaturally, can only create beings less than Himself, not equal or greater. God is a Necessary Being. He has always existed and it is in His nature to exist. If He creates a being, even one as powerful as He is, they will still be a contingent being. They would have a beginning, and so they would not have always existed. God did not create imperfect beings, however God did give us free will. As such, and as we are lesser than God, we acted upon our free will improperly and committed sins. Those sins are the reason we couldn't go to Heaven and were facing Hell. It's only because of God's mercy that we can be saved at all.5. Con's argument is a non sequitur. Making the claim of perfection does not make one's existence unbelievable, at the most it may just make their claims unbelievable.7. I'm not twisting any facts. The problem is that Con has clear biases against the Scriptures so no amount of reason will convince him otherwise. To Con, reasonable explanations are not enough. He would argue for inconsistency no matter how consistent the texts were. I can't explain why certain authors left out certain details but it's clear that if the other books don't contradict these details then there's no contradiction. Con's argument is based on ad hominem attacks ("crappy writers") and special pleading. It is clear that Con is not an honest thinker, so he will try desperately to show contradictions where none exist. This is a perfect example. In Mark 16:5, there is an angel in the tomb. The book of John clearly shows us that Mary went to the tomb twice. Luke and John do not say the tomb was empty, they say they did not find the body of Jesus. Clearly Con is fabricating contradictions. In the book of John, Mary Magdalene was the only one mentioned. John does not say she was alone. She was the only one that John felt it necessary to mention. Mary says ". .. we do not know where they have taken him" in John 20:2, that same verse. So clearly she wasn't alone, even though John only decided to include her, specifically, in the narrative. At no time does he say she was the only one who went to the tomb. Now, Con is arguing from ignorance to try and discredit Jesus. "We can't prove it so it must not be true. " There is a historical Jesus. To claim any different is just ridiculous. Also, Christians refer to many writings that contain references to Jesus (other authors who mention Jesus are Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and a host of others, including Josephus, which is not fraudulent. [2] But even if there were no other sources, it wouldn't matter. The Bible was compiled in one volume in the fourth century. Before then these were four independent accounts of Jesus written by four different people (not to mention the numerous other books not accepted as Biblical canon, such as The Apocalypse of Peter). Saying there was no Jesus just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.8. The difference is that the Scriptures have their basis in history. The fact that there are things in common with other cultures lends credibility to these events happening. Christianity and Judaism are historical religions. The Old and New Testaments were historical accounts recorded, mostly as the events were occurring. [1] . http://www.psychologytoday.com...;[2] . http://christianthinktank.com...;