The God of the Jews exists, and Judaism, as explained by Orthdoxy, is the correct religion.

Thanks to tower. I apologize if this round is not up to par; I have a pretty pounding headache. 1. The argument may go deeper than that but, unfortunately, your argument for the existence of God still remains an argument from ignorance. That was your exact argument form,"There is a God of some sort, because there is no other explanation as to where the world came from". A classic god-of-the-gaps argument. You are free to reformulate the argument to make it valid but it is still not valid no matter how you explain it. Strangely, you seem not to realize the contradiction in your own argument. You state that the law of cause and effect has never been broken to our knowledge but then in the very same sentence claim that there is something that hasn't been effected by another cause. Wouldn't that mean that the law of cause and effect HAS been broken according to our knowledge then? And, again, you are ignoring the fact that there are other explanations of the universe's existence that do not involve anything supernatural. Indeed one of the theories even answers your question of what caused that system of events? The answer could very well be nothing caused that system of events. From my second source in round 1: "Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know - the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels, 1982, 247)" " According to the most popular interpretation of quantum theory it's possible for things to come into existence UNCAUSED. This would render your whole train of logic invalid. Even granting that a supernatural force created the universe there is no reason to suppose that it is God. All you are doing is identifying something supernatural and claiming it is God. No arguments to expand on that point or anything. I repeat - it is such an extraordinarily large leap from "creator of the universe" to "God". It's conceivable that there be another supernatural force that created the universe so you must give us an argument as to why we should identify this force with God. It's not enough to paper over the difficulties and claim that this force is God and to further assume that this god is benevolent. It still seems Pro cannot even get his argument off the ground if he cannot provide, at the very least, a logically valid argument for GOD. 2. Right off bat Pro misunderstands evolution and thus his argument staggers. It is not random; there is a process that is called natural selection that "chooses" (so to speak) various traits that leads to better survivability n the environment. If evolution is not random (which it isn't) then his argument about there not being enough time on this planet and slim chances for humans to evolve fails. I'm sorry but saying that God could not be evil or amoral because he has historically been not is a weak argument.. It just seems you are just skimming over all of the horrible things that have happened in earth's history like the holocaust or the millions of starving kids in Africa. If God is the only way to salvation and wants as many humans to gain salvation as possible why are there so many unbelievers? Couldn't he make it more obvious that he exists? These are two problems that would seem to demand answers and do make it seem as if God is less than benevolent. There are definitely some unpleasant things here. 3. Pro claims that true happiness is never given or that it is not given for free because the happiness I get hanging out with my niece requires, at the very least, some effort. This seems to be almost unintelligible to me. True happiness between beings (like Pro says between God and humans) would have to be reciprocal. That involves giving from one to another. Indeed, in heaven it is often said just being the presence of God would GIVE us perfect happiness. How does Pro reconcile that view and his distinctions between "true happiness" and mundane, temporal happiness. 4. Pro claims that happiness would be most effective in a place dedicated to happiness because the suffering of others would mar the happiness of those here on earth, but this brings ups an interesting objection. Suppose that you are in heaven - would not your "true" happiness be marred by the knowledge that there are those suffering in hell? Do to this I don't think Pro makes a relevant distinction between happiness and true happiness here. 5. Strangely Pro's claims here to seem to contradict orthodox theology. It is usually claimed that God cannot do any evil whatsoever - so how is it that he was able to imprint us with an instinct to do evil? That would certainly seem like an evil act. I can accept that free will necessitates that one be able to choose between good and evil but that is a far cry from saying that God IMPRINTED human beings with the instinct evil. 6. Whatever ancient people were they were not stupid. They realized that walking on water or parting the Red Sea just doesn't happen without divine intervention. They realized that women do NOT just become pregnant without intercourse without divine intervention. The realized that people do NOT just come back to life without divine intervention. Even in the Bible there were many who doubted that Jesus rose from the dead; they may have not realized the exact manner in how physically impossible that would be due to ignorance of science but they weren't THAT gullible. Ironically, Pro's own contention can be used against him. Certainly God speaking to 1.2 million people would be considered a miracle and going by Pro's own logic the general populace believed in non-divine magic an miracles or "magic tricks". If they could conceive of say, Jesus' miracles as a hoax then they could conceive of the appearance of God to 1.2 million people as a hoax. Further Con claims they all had the same story as to how God appeared to them but that is just plain suspicious by today's standards. In modern judiciary proceedings it is considered MORE believable and verifiable if the all the witnesses have the same basic facts right but differ on slight details as this makes it MUCH more likely that they did not just get together and make it up. If they all purportedly had the same exact experience and reported it as such then that would make it questionable as it's conceivable that some had this experience and spread it throughout the community to get consensus. 7. How is it not monumental to send the very Son of God to earth? Despite the how monumental it would be to appear 1.2 million people simultaneously I count the former as much more monumental. That may be my bias, though. ;) 8. Your previous explanation does not hold water as I showed. And, obviously, he had no problem getting the message across even in the ancient times as Jesus apparently had many followers. 9. Fair enough. 10. I'm not sure if I made my point not clear in my last round but what you are doing is judging their explanations invalid from with the framework of orthodox Judaism and then proclaiming that the orthodoxy is the only one with a valid explanation. "While Conservative and Reform Judaism also believe that some kind of Oral Law was always necessary to make the Torah comprehensible and workable, they reject the belief that most of the Talmud dates back to Moses' time. They are more apt to see the Talmud and the Oral Law as an evolving system, in which successive generations of rabbis discussed and debated how to incorporate the Torah into their lives." [1] This doesn't mean they don't view their explanations as invalid; just that the oral Torah is adaptable to modern times. [1] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...