There is good evidence that God exists.

First, I'll address the issue of my requiring extrabiblical accounts. Basically it comes down to reliability. The more sources that agree, the more reliable we can consider the accounts. It's not specifically discounting the bible, it's simply requiring more. That said... Point 1: without extrabiblical corroboration, I cannot consider the events of the bible as being historically accurate. There is too much contradiction within the pages of the bible to even consider it seriously as a source on its own, so thus requires more reliable writings to clarify it and verify it. If such writings exist, they haven't been found. Point 1.2: You're grasping at straws. The fact remains that no census was conducted by the Romans in Israel within the lifetime of Herod. This is a matter of historical record preserved from Roman times. Point 1.3: Looks as though you dropped this argument. Point 2: Josephus was too young to be considered a contemporary historian. He came after. His works are also suspect for reasons not related to his late arrival; many believe the single mention of Jesus in his writings was added at a later date. Ignatius of Antioch was only two years older than Josephus. The rest can't even be reasonably considered to be contemporary historians by any stretch of the imagination. If this is the foundation on which you rest your case, it's weak and rickety foundation at best. Point 3: I don't think you understand that the credibility of the Church is unreliable for the purposes of this debate. That credibility relies on the consistency of the bible, and said consistency simply isn't there. Refer back to the link in my R2 argument. There's a plethora of biblical contradictions listed there. In response to your Point 3 conclusion, there's the hypothesis that the story was written as an allegory. Point 4 I didn't say they were generally delusional. I said they suffered from self-delusion in regards to this one point. Your whole argument on this point is a non-sequitur. Point 5 Subpoints 1 and 5 imply some sort of sacrifice. But the legend says he stayed dead three whole days and then resurrected, pranced about a bit, and then buggered off back to his father. I hardly call that sacrifice. Subpoint 2 is clearly refuted by other points in this round and my previous round. Subpoint 3 is irrelevant. I can't be forgiven for misdeeds by someone who wasn't a party to those misdeeds. Subpoint 4: I have no lord, so this is irrelevant. Subpoint 6: Captain Planet loves you. That means as much to you as Jesus loving me means to me. Both are pointless statements about a fictional character. As for your "super bonus" evidence: 1: A First Cause is not necessarily a powerful, intelligent being, or even a being at all. There are things happening in supposed nothingness that science is just now barely even able to detect, much less explain. 2: Nothing in the KCA refutes my preceding statement. 3: Objective morality is a myth. The truth of subjective morality is plain to see, "for those with eyes to see." 4: The teleological argument is a fallacy of switched cause and effect; the universe seems fine-tuned to the existence of life as we know it, not because it is, but because life as we know it is of necessity fine-tuned to the universe as it exists. Were it "fine tuned" differently, life would look much different. 5: The ontological argument is nothing but a word game, with no true meaning in actual fact. I think I have shown logical reasons why each of these arguments fails to be proof of the existence of a god. In conclusion, I believe I've undermined any and all arguments made by my opponent for the supposed existence of Jesus. I've shed sufficient doubt upon the historicity of Jesus that his burden of proof fails. I will not try to tell you who to vote for, but I hope you can agree that my arguments were sound, regardless of your personal beliefs on the matter. FritzStammberger, it's been a pleasure debating you on this matter. May the best arguments win.