God does exist

Since Con has forfeited both Round 3 and Round 4, I suggest that Con displays poor conduct. In addition to showing poor conduct, I question why Con chose to debate this topic, if they were unwilling to debate any serious response? And furthermore, why Con felt the need to stress parameters such as non-religious proof, and only religious opponents? However, as I stated in Round 3, I will now proceed with my rebuttal against Con's argument: "I firmly believe god doesn't exist. This is because Darwinism is against the English Standard Version Bible Genesis 1." The definition of Darwinism, according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is as follows: "a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors." http://www.merriam-webster.com... In essence, Darwinism is the theory of adaptational evolution, that species will evolve in order to survive. This is an observable phenomenon, as proven by the study of finches and beak elongation. However, this theory does not provide an explanation regarding the explicit origin of life, and does not explicitly disprove the Biblical record of creation. That being said, I feel the need to suggest the possibility that the Bible is a metaphorical text. Even if the written text is divinely inspired, there is a very real possibility that the text is allegorical in nature, rather than literal. In order for you to take this text as literal, I suggest that you would be a believer yourself, which raises the question of why you are Con in this debate. So if you are Con, then I naturally will infer that you do not take this text literally, and therefore, there is no real contradiction on the basis of logic, unless you intend to debate philosophy. Regarding your references to the sun going around the Earth, the human race at one point truly believed that the sun revolved around Earth, and accepted this as a scientific fact. Since that time, we have proven that this is not the case, but to the perception of the ancient world, this was a perfectly acceptable image, and is not a significant point of discussion unless you once again intend to take this text very literally. However, I would like to make a point regarding Joshua's "Sun Stand Still" verse. Rumors have been circulated regarding a discovery of a "missing day," according to NASA, but this discovery is merely a rumor and nothing more. On the other hand, however, there are references in other ancient cultures to a single day that is twice as long, which would support the Joshua story. While there is no explicit scientific proof of a "long day," there are specific references to "a day twice in natural length," in Chinese, Egyptian, Mexican, Aztec, Peruvian, and Babylonian history that chronologically coincide with the existence of Joshua. I highly recommend reading the full article, which can be found here: https://bible.org... Regarding the statements that the Earth is flat, the Earth has been established to be spherical in shape since the Third Century BC, and "The ends of the Earth" has been widely used as a common expression for the majority of this time. Therefore, it is not substantial evidence. Furthermore, none of the three verses you posted explicitly suggest that the Earth is literally flat. "Based on all this it's hard to take the bible seriously after so many verses were proved false by science. This makes the bible illogical." It may be difficult to take as literal, but as I have said, there is a possibility that the text is more metaphorical in nature. "God Wrote Bible" Theoretically, He divinely inspired man to write it for Him. "Lots of verses of the Bible false" You mean non-literal, or contradictory? "God can't lie" But humans could make mistakes. "God must not exist therefore" Why not? "God can't write Bible, if he doesn't exist" Theoretically speaking, he only inspired the Bible. "A human writer wrote the Bible" Technically, lots of human writers combined stories in collaboration to create the collection of texts that we now call the Bible. "So the Bible itself disproves that God exists." How so? If you mean to suggest that God literally is the only source for the Bible, and that any misconception or alleged contradiction is to be construed as an outright lie from God, than I can only say that I disagree. The Bible was written by many authors, which is proven by analysis of the various books, and the theoretical authors, many of whom are proven to be real people in history. If we accept that man has written this text in any way, then it instantly becomes subject to the possibility of human error, no matter how divinely inspired it may be. These authors were subject to the science of their time, and would have recorded their texts according to their understandings. For example, Mark and John both have drastically different versions of the same Gospel. "Also darwinism disproves creationism," Technically, it doesn't. Darwinism does not account for the origin of life and matter itself. Darwinism only disproves the creationist theory that literally all animals were created in less than a week. This, once again, may be a metaphorical description. What the Bible labeled as 6 days, could realistically have been eons, and only recorded in terms of "days." However, we can't be certain if this is meant literally, or metaphorically. "Any way if god existed, why would god let animals and humans die and why doesn't he answer prayers, like when you ask him to heal a stranger from cancer." If God exists, then I cannot begin to comprehend his plans, or why he would allow a disease like cancer to exist. "Also it is very impractical that a old white bearded man exists and knows everything." Impractical, maybe so, but impossible? That's the real question. And I have no idea what color he is, or what his grooming habits are. As I stated in my main argument, what I perceive as God maybe an extraterrestrial of some form. "I am not saying he doesn't exist as there is no proof for that, but it's very impractical and illogical for god to exist." If you are not saying that God doesn't exist, then you have essentially conceded the debate. "Also the burden of proof lies in saying he exists, not in saying he doesn't exist." As you stated in the first round: "I am the con and argue why god doesn't exist, while my opponent pro argues why god exists and it is the pros and cons job to find scientific proof for their side." Your statement that "it is the pro's and the con's job to find scientific proof" is your written declaration that you and I share an equal burden of proof. That being said, you would have had to provide scientific evidence suggesting that God does not exist, which you arguably have not. In actuality, you have argued against the literal validity of the Bible, not against God, so you have not successfully fulfilled your burden of proof. "So based on the overwhelming evidence against god, according to the rules of this debate god doesn't exist." You have not provided any real considerable evidence regarding the nonexistence of God, and very little evidence against the Bible, which you originally suggested was not permissible as evidence in the first round. For that matter, your rules were rigidly defined, and you broke them yourself. You make a point to disallow the Bible as a source, and then repeatedly try to disprove the Bible as a source. This means that you realistically do consider the Bible to be a source in this debate, but were attempting to restrict your opponent's options. So this causes me to infer that you either have a poorly conceived argument, and a very small one at that, or that you were attempting to play semantics, or tricks, on your opponent. Then, you tried to end your argument by suggesting that Pro bears the only burden of proof, which is incorrect. So in summary, Con's only arguments rely on the logical contradiction of a literal interpretation of the Bible, a text source which Con firmly restricted in the rules. In addition, Con's arguments do not provide any evidence to dispute the claim that God does exist. I hope that Con has not abandoned this debate, and will at least read my rebuttal. I await the Conclusion round.