Does God Exist? The proposition is that NO Christian God exists.

Sorry about that. I had no free time in which to reply to your argument. But now that I've read the whole script so far, I do not see how your last argument responded in any way to my previous argument; to me, they bared little correlation. I'll start with summarising every point made so far, and then I'll respond to any outstanding points, and clarify my position, and state what I feel you need to do to constitute an adequate response. Lapsang Argument 1: I showed how neither the cosmological argument, nor the anthropic arguments are valid arguments for God. I presented two of my own arguments for God: Evolution (which we will not discuss due to you not believing in it), and through God's seemingly hidden nature. That can be summarised as: God does not want people to suffer, people suffer if they do not believe in God - if Christianity is true, yet God has chosen not to present evidence for Himself on a par with the evidence for anything we humanity accepts to be definitely true, ie gravity. Mkenny Argument 1: You stated the teleological argument for God. Then, you attempted to answer my argument from God's hiddenness. You did so just by clarifying the Christian teaching on saving. You showed how in 'The Bible' it says that God does not want people to suffer, and they will if they don't believe in Him. You showed that punishing people for their sins was fair. Lapsang Argument 2: I point out that your response does not actually respond to my argument; you just clarified the Christian teaching, without showing why God did not present obvious proof of His existence. I proceeded to show that evolution was a solution that stopped an otherwise infinite chain of regresses (it is a 'crane'), whereas creationism replaced one problem with another, more significant problem (it is a 'sky-hook') I also showed how your logic was faulty, how your argument, even without evolution, is just a fallacious 'God of the Gaps' argument. Mkenny Argument 2: You objected to me saying that evolution was 'absolutely' accepted, when 0.1% deny it. You called evolution a 'hypothesis'. You said that while micro evolution was fact, macro was a "world-view". You said that people believe in evolution because intelligent people believe in evolution, and they in turn believe in evolution because their predecessors do. Your final point was that God is that a book called 'The Bible' said that God is eternal. So, first I should clarify my position on the 'absolutely accepted' issue. I think that you are really scraping at the barrel when your second and third paragraphs are both dedicated to beating to death one instance of arguably dodgy wording. Anyway, I think I am right in saying "absolutely", as that can mean definitely, which does work. Because evolution (macro), is definitely accepted by the scientific community. Admittedly not by all evolutionary biologists, but by the community at large. Secondly you call evolution a 'hypothesis', here I must object most strongly. The scientific method is this: Hypothesis, then falsify it, then make conclusion, which is always open to adjustments. And unlike creationism, evolution (macro) can be and has been falsified. Even when Darwin published 'Origin of Species', it was beyond a hypothesis. As you have such an unusual opinion on evolution, I am sure that you have read that book several times, so perhaps you just forgot that he had the hypothesis, then falsified it on birds, and then concluded that his hypothesis, with a few adjustments, was correct. I am sure you know, when you say macro evolution is not a fact, that nothing is factual, everything has differing degrees of certainty. Then you said that scientists believe in evolution because their predecessors did. But we are talking about evolutionary biologists, and this is simply not true. Adjustments are constantly being made to evolution which proves that the evolutionary biologists do not just blindly believe in it, they challenge it using all their critical faculties. Your final point is that a book called 'The Bible' says God is eternal, and you defend yourself from my attack on your logic. Yet you said, "Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if man's highly intelligent brain designed the computer, then the human brain was also the product of design?". OK, done with the rebuttals. Now onto what you need to do to provide an adequate response to the sum of my arguments and rebuttals. I do not feel you have responded to my argument for God. So you need to show either: - why there is no evidence for God on a par with the evidence for gravity - that there is evidence for God on a par with the evidence for gravity, and then you would need to show why, given that the evidence for God is as obvious, clear, and irrefutable as the evidence for gravity, do so many people not believe in God. You also need to show either: - why your positive argument for God's existence does not commit the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy - or why the 'God of the Gaps' argument is not a fallacy. You also need to show: - that the 'sky-hook' solution - God, is better than the 'crane' solution - evolution. I again apologise for not having the time to respond in the last lot of alloted time.