A god exists, as defined by the PRO side.

"This assumes the existence of spirit. Spirit can only be assumed to exist, as it is unprovable." You have to assume the existence of something. Your not born a scientist, you are born a human being with more than one way to figure out reality. Logic and experience are the only things at your disposal. You assume the existence of this debate and us as individuals. Science isn't meant to prove existence, but to discover how the world works. This is taken from wikipedia: "Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." Metaphysics according to Encyclopedia Britannica: "A common set of claims on behalf of metaphysics is that it is an inquiry into what exists" "Yes, but experience isn't enough. Events must be controlled to be well-understood, which is why one-time, subjective events cannot be scientifically proven." You agree, but then you say that we need science. "Can we experience God in a laboratory, under controlled circumstances?" 1. Science is focused on observable evidence 2. God is not observable by nature 3. Therefore God cannot be confined to a lab and is outside Science's reach "This is irrelevant detail." Wrong, it's important to know the people transmitting the manuscripts in order to determine the accuracy of the manuscripts themselves. "Accuracy of transmission between the Qumran scrolls and the Masoretic text proves nothing, and the other points are worded quite confusingly." "Irrelevant." You ignore the evidence presented and do not explain why it's irrelevant. You claimed in round 2 that the Bible "all means, has no evidence behind it and is entirely fictional", i refuted that statement. I will now present specific archaeological discoveries made: 1. The walls of Jericho have been discovered with evidence of a mud-brick wall collapsing just as the Bible describes 2. The city of Beth-shean (1 Kings 4:12) was mentioned by other historical writers (Pliny). 3. An inscription made reference to the biblical house of David (1) These are just samples. There are plenty more "Excepting the extensive evidence for a 13.75 BY old universe." Not sure what you mean by that. "1. The problem of evil: Yes, I acknowledge that there are many possible explanations for evil. Classic examples include: Free will: If god intervened in the world, it would not affect free will. God has been said to intervene in the Bible, but never does today. He has a plan: ...which involves people constantly dying of cancers, illnesses, wars, crime and faith-healing scams. He is teaching a lesson: ...which is lopsided and affects mostly poor, third-world nations." You never address how the problem of evil argument disproves his existence. We are now drifting to his morality. Like i said, you commit the fallacy of argument to the point of disgust by repeating the same argument. You ignored the fact that this argument is logically impossible to fulfill and is just a play on words. I stated: "The problem with this argument is that it is logically impossible for anyone to harmonize it. If God is powerful enough to cause himself to not be powerful, he's not God. If he's not powerful enough, he's still not God, so this argument is futile." You still failed to argue why this disproves his existence. Sources: 1. http://www.biblestudysite.com...