God Exists Only in the Minds of His Followers

My opponent has a bit of a habit of making amazing topics, so thanks! Today I will be arguing three facts, which are drawn from my opponent's introduction to the topic. 1. God exists 2. Bible is accurate (historically and scientifically) 3. Bible is a good source of morality However, given that the resolution specifically is about God's existence, the first argument should be more important than the other two in the voter's final judgments. Let's begin! My arguments are: 1. God exists 1.1 Descartes Argument It is impossible for a being to be all-perfect, all-knowing etc and not exist. Therefore such a being must exist. Invented by philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes. 1.2 The Lewis Argument If there was no God to create the universe, then the universe must have been an accident. If the universe is an accident, so is our thinking. If our thinking is an accident, we have no reason to believe it. This is absurd because it contradicts the premise that the universe exists. The only "way out" is to modify the first premise. Tertium non datur. Therefore there was a God to create the universe. Invented by philosopher and writer C.S. Lewis. 1.3 The Pascal Argument Either God exists or it does not. If we believe it exists, rewards are huge or naught. If we don't believe it exists, rewards are negative or naught. Therefore only belief in God can be rationally justified. Invented by mathematician and logician Blaire Pascal. 1.4 The Kant Argument Any attempt to refute God that holds any weight relies on logic. Therefore the argument presupposes the existence of logic. Logical truths cannot be proven without reference to God. Therefore any argument against God presupposes the existence of God. Invented by philosopher and all-round smart person Immanual Kant. 2. Bible is accurate 2.1 Burden of Proof I cannot reasonably, in 8000 characters, prove every single Bible statement. Therefore in this round, I will merely demonstrate that the Bible contains scientific truth, and ask that my opponent prove that there is at least one fallacious statement. If voters still believe, after reading all my analysis, that the bible contains fallacies, they would do well to read the extensive collections of research at http://www.rationalchristianity.net..., http://carm.org..., http://www.godandscience.org... and http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org... 2.2 Historically 2.2.1 Jesus According to the Bible, Jesus performed miracles in front of hundreds of witnesses and appeared to hundreds more after his death. Nothing about this writing suggests legendary development - it was either a legend all along or the truth. Many people who were hostile to Jesus (ie Paul, Jewish authorities) could have disproved the Jesus hypothesis by proving the Gospels inaccurate. As it so happens, we don't have any record of anyone doubting the accuracy of the Gospel narratives for about 200 years, and then only indirectly. To this day, there are no known contemporaneous conflicting accounts with the Gospels. 2.2.2 Israel Narrative The bible contains numerous books about the development of the nation of Israel. Again, we have no known contemporaneous conflicting accounts. Furthermore, the accounts are ruthless in portraying Israel as she was - which is often in a very negative light. This is strong evidence that the stories are intended to be read as historical accounts, not fairy tales. 2.3 Scientifically The bible is filled with hundreds of statements. All of them agree with established scientific theory. Let me show some examples. Time magazine: "Most cosmologists ... agree that the biblical account of creation ... may be uncannily close to the truth." After all, it tells of a big bang (Genesis 1), an expanding universe (Isiah 40:22), empty space (Job 26:7), air having weight (Job 28:25), each star being unique (1 Corinthians 15:41), ocean springs (Job 38:16), dinosaurs (Genesis 1:21 - the Hebrew for whales is the same as that for dragons, which is the root word of dinosaur), cave men (Job 30:5&6), precise dimensions for a ridiculously float-able boat (reconstructions of Noah's Ark prove it could withstand waves three times as high as a typical tsunami - see S.W. Hong et al, "Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway") and many more truths. Every one of these facts was only discovered by science within the last 300 years, often at a cost of billions of dollars. They need simply have picked up a $10 bible. I guess noted physicist Dr. Donald DeYoung sums it up best when he says "When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate." 3. Bible is a good source of morality The bible teaches many things, but let us first examine the 10+2 commandments as the ultimate moral compass. 1. Only have one God <- gives spiritual certainty in life 2. No idols <- encourages rationality (idolization clouds judgment) 3. Don't swear <- encourages common courtesy 4. Respect Sabbaths <- encourages balance in life, take time out to relax 5. Honor parents <- encourages reciprocity - they helped you, you help them 6. Don't kill <- I guess you'll concede this, given your arguments in our last debate, where you asserted this is a "universal" moral law 7. No adultery <- Encourages chastity and restraint 8. No stealing <- Encourages personal responsibility and public safety 9. No lying <- Encourages fair justice 10. No coveting <- Coveting is unhealthy, can lead to greater temptation easily +1. Love your God <- religion should have meaning; otherwise, why do it? +2. Love your neighbor <- as the Maori proverb goes "What is the greatest thing in this world? 'Tis people, 'tis people, 'tis people!" Once again, it would be impossible in 8000 characters to go through every moral imperative of the bible, so I again ask my opponent to clarify those which he disagrees with so that this debate can move forward. Conclusion God exists. No doubt about it. The bible can be historically and scientifically verified, and I will do much more to prove this once my opponent begins his criticism. I say the same for the goodness of the bible as a source of morality. Now, I'd like to hand over to my opponent, that he may open his case.