God Exists Only in the Minds of His Followers

This round, my opponent has dropped 4 out of 5 of his previous arguments and ignored most of my rebuttals. Nonetheless I shall answer his new cases. I also wish to apologize for last round, where my writing was at times unclear - I had to edit heavily to meet the character restriction. 1. God exists 1.1 Descartes Con's Counter: My opponent concedes that what I have said is true No I didn't! I conceded that it might be true, and might not. Your argument presupposes knowledge of perfection that niether you nor I have. Thus your argument does not stand. 1.2 Lewis Con's new counter: accidents of nature does not lead to accidents of thinking If my opponent wishes to run this argument, he must concede that our thinking is not a part of nature. Great! Looks like somebody just conceded the existence of souls! Con's other new counter: logic does not depend on origin This argument has NOTHING TO DO with logic. 1.3 Pascal Con's new counter: Not for Christian God None of my arguments are for a Christian God. Taken together, though - the existence of God and the infallibility of the Bible - we can deduce that the Christian God is real. Note that this does not actually attack the validity of the Pascal argument at all. 1.4 Kant Con's counter: 93% The exact numbers of belief is irrelevant. All I need to prove is God can be the source of logic and unbelievers can have logic too. You implied that logic is related to disbelief. I think I have shown this to be false already. In fact, both believers and disbelievers can be logical. This would show that logic is more of a gift (ie from God) than a talent (ie exclusively acquired from studying science). 2. Biblical accuracy 2.1 Inaccuracy 2.1.1 Great Flood You didn't ask for a secular scientific site, you asked for a scientific site. Of course the secular scientists won't tell you the evidence for a great flood because they're secular. Your argument is tautological. 2.1.2 Adam and Eve Your cited study showing change over time is actually well within the level of variability for modern human DNA. You ignored my point about chilarity and the fossil record. And you committed the ad populum fallacy. Thus I win the point. 2.1.3 Age of the Earth Just because the Bible doesn't list every single knowable fact (winning lotto numbers, every person's date of death etc) does not mean that God doesn't know them. It doesn't even imply this. Your argument is nonsense. 2.2 Historical 2.2.1 Jesus Of course we're talking second-hand-accounts - any first hand accounts you'd dismiss as being not secular! If not, how about the Gospel of John? I agree that destruction of evidence does not prove the evidence, but it does explain why there are no records of crucifixions in ancient Judea. Except for Jesus and two robbers. 2.2.2 Israel I'M NOT PROVING GOD in this argument. I'm saying that the bible is accurate, which you specifically denied in round one. 2.3 Scientific 2.3.1 Big bang "In the beginning" posits a beginning. "Big bang" posits a beginning. Why are they not alike? 2.3.2 Tent I'm not the one making the unconfirmed hypothesis - YOU ARE! You claimed the universe was not like a tent in round 2. 2.3.3 Space Nothingness and vacuum are, in fact, synonyms. A translator can use either freely. Don't criticize the bible based on translation. 2.3.4 Air's Weight So you're honestly saying that scientists don't rely on axioms to conduct investigations? Or are you saying that axioms from the Bible are automatically invalid? If so, why? 2.3.5 Unique Stars I see your point about confirmation bias. But how else could the scripture possibly be interpreted? It's written very clearly that stars are unique in their splendor. 2.3.6 Splendor A mirror image of beauty is still beautiful. A reflection of splendor is still splendorous. 2.3.7 Ocean Springs See 2.3.5 above. 2.3.8 Dinosaurs Once again, they mention dragons. The line "And God saw a giant meteor killing the dragons" simply did not fit, and was not important. 2.3.9 Neanderthals Read the science before you come to rash conclusions: http://www.straight-talk.net... and http://www.creation.com... 3.Morality 3.1 Ok to kill kids? Nope, God did kill the kids. Read your bible again. And stop bossing God around, telling us what it "doesn't" want. 3.2 Ok to kill cursers? Once again, nowhere in the bible does it give people the authority to kill people. Here it says these people will die. It doesn't say we should kill them. 3.3 Ok to prize plunder? If that's true, then why do even the council of Jewish rabbis I cited, whose ancestors wrote these words down, disagree with you? 3.4 Ok to insult God? Just you watch out next time you're at the zoo! The kids were insulting God by insulting its prophet. God gave them just retribution. God will give all just retribution who insult him. Worth noting that, as I've already shown, none of the above are actually moral laws. They are God telling us how he will behave. Moral laws apply to the behavior of people. The 10 commandments I cited are the ultimate corner-stone of moral laws and my opponent is yet to rebut them. 4. IPU Your case is totally contingent upon point 1, meaning it makes no sense for us to argue over it separately.