The Judeo-Christian God exists.

Thanks, Pro "Who's to say that one must be a Jew or a Christian in order to have a relationship with God? I certainly have not made this assertion." You're right, they don't have to be a Jew or a Christian, but as I had previously stated, Adam and Eve's descendants had at least 1,000 years to make one written record of a god that is similar to the Judeo-Christian god... the first appeared only after plenty of other beliefs had come to be. I had stated in Round 2: "I had stated that "evil" in this argument meant disaster and disease which affected the innocent." You responded in Round 2: "evil is defined as immoral, so I don't really see anything "evil" about natural disasters and diseases." If God chooses to inflict natural disaster and disease on the innocent, it is immoral on his account. It is evil. "Nevertheless, you seem to be asserting that this is some sort of logical contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of natural disasters/disease." Not necessarily. I find it illogical for a *good* god to inflict natural disaster and disease on the innocent, or at least, not bother to save them from injuries or illness, and keep them in PAIN for quite some time. According to the Bible, God loves us. If he's omnipotent and loves us, he wouldn't let millions of innocent people suffer from disease or natural disaster each day. "The burden of proof is on you to show your assertion to be true." Satisfied? "My opponent seems to acknowledge that people of all religions attest to the power of prayer (which seems to contradict his previous claim that prayer is useless)." How does this contradict my claim that prayer is useless? Just because a person claims their prayer works does not mean it does. With this statement I acknowledge that while Christians claim their Christian God answers their prayers, Hindus claim Brahman, Vishnu, Shiva, etc... answer theirs. So while religions contradict each other "you shall have no god before me", it seems like every religion's prayers are being answered. Therefore, their claims are of no significance and can be regarded as untrue. "As prayer is supernatural, science couldn't possibly tell us anything about prayer. It is not within the scope of science." Awfully convenient. You still have the Burden of Proof to prove the Christian God exists and that other gods do not. "Perhaps God will only intervene to help if John freely asks for it (through prayer). In other words, God won't force His help onto us; He waits for us to ask Him for it through prayer." Whether or not someone prays is not entirely dependent on his free choice of prayer; where a man is born can also affect it. If one is born into a Christian home, he has "access" to God, hypothetically speaking. However, if a man is born into a Hindu or Muslim home, he doesn't have access. Will God simply ignore these other religions, just because they were not raised to believe in him? Hypothetically speaking, if God exists, then it is a matter of chance whether or not you have access to God. Where you are born decides it. "My opponent gives no indication that he disagrees with the first premise of this argument (everything that begins to exist has a cause) but he does take issue with the second premise (the universe began to exist). My opponent, by stating "there was never a time when the universe didn't exist" affirms an eternal universe and, therefore, an infinite past. " Well, I do disagree. I showed that by disagreeing with your second premise... which ultimately supports your first premise. "What cause the beginning of the universe?" As I had stated, there was no "before the Big Bang". The Universe was so infinitely dense, time did not exist as it was a "quantum vacuum", as you said. When the Universe expanded due to the immense heat of the singularity, spacetime was ultimately created. Spacetime is "time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum." If the universe is infinitely dense, it is like a point on a graph: it has no dimensions. As it expands, it takes up space (three dimensions), and ultimately time (the fourth dimension). "As for the idea of an infinite past that my opponent seems to be affirming, I showed in the opening round that infinity is merely an idea in our minds, but it has no place in reality." You demonstrated this with coins. Having coins is far different from having dimensions, which are, essentially, non-existent. A dimension, however, can go on forever. This indicated on a simple graph with lines (as opposed to line segments, indicating that there is a beginning and an end). "This is pure speculation and subjective opinion. It could be the case that certain acts (like stealing) are either right or wrong in every scenario. Even if "right" and "wrong" did depend on varying circumstances, this would do nothing to show that therefore there is no real "right" or "wrong". It would at best show that what's "right" in one scenario might be "wrong" in another; but again, that action would still be either objectively "right" or "wrong" depending on the circumstance." The Bible contains many rules, not only the Ten Commandments, but they are outdated and are very black and white. "You shall not steal." (Exodus 20) doesn't allow for any exceptions. There is a difference between stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving niece and stealing a car because you believe it will make you look cool. But the Bible does not take this into account and is thus, an unreliable "source" for morality. "On this view, then, actions like self-sacrifice would be immoral" No. This is where pheromones kick in. Organisms are designed to protect themselves as well, and is almost always first priority (sometimes after offspring). You bring up the action of self-sacrifice and claim that, using my logic, it would be evil. In self sacrifice, one can either let himself die to preserve the life of someone else or have the other die and survive. In rape, torture, and murder, there is no choice between which life to preserve; there is only a choice of whether or not to harm someone else. Harming the child or woman does not preserve the life of anyone else. Self sacrifice does, however, and is therefore justified. You are comparing two very different situations with very different variables. "Until you are able to provide a primary academic source, we will continue to treat it as a myth." I provided the name of the book: The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light, which was a 2004 best-selling non-fiction, written by Tom Harpur,, a former Anglican priest, journalist and professor of Greek and New Testament at the University of Toronto, which supports the Christ myth theory. I also studied evolutionary biology in high school and at Princeton, but I have also done extra research about morality, something Christians bring up quite often. Not only does the theory of Evolution support the existence of morality, but there are many other psychological theories. http://psychology.about.com... None of your arguments in support of your burden of proof genuinely stand. If one were to use inductive reasoning, they would see that all religions and mythologies, including Judaism and Christianity make the same mistake: providing no evidence. Therefore all religions can be considered to be equally as probable... but they all contradict each other. Therefore it is just as likely for God to be real as it is for Zeus. Zeus is regarded as non-existent not because there's no "proof" against his existence, but because no one believes in him anymore! Even if there was evidence of a creator, it would support other religions. To prove the Christian god is real, you must first prove all others are false, which you have not. "No god before me". But since these other gods are supernatural and are outside the 'scope of science", I guess you can't disprove them either.