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

I shall keep this one short. 1. Pro has basically admitted that he has a committed an argument for ignorance but insists that does not render God's existence untrue. He's right, technically, an invalid argument for something' s existence doesn't necessarily mean that something doesn't existence - it just means it's bad logic and should be unpersuasive. Imagine this argument: "We don't know how the universe came into existence therefore God didn't do it." Now, anybody in their right mind would point out this is an argument that is unpersuasive and is just invalid but that is exactly what Pro did except replace "God didn't do it" with "God did it". And he again misunderstands the nature of the vacuum fluctuations - they don't NEED a cause which is the whole point of me bringing them up about how it's possible to "escape" cause and effect without God. Finally, Pros last assertion of a supernatural being creating the universe is by definition God is merely just trying to define God into existence. I showed earlier how their is a huge leap from traits of a being who created the universe to the "God of Orthodox Judaism". 2. Pro misunderstands the "random" in random mutations. In evolution the "random" is meant statistically and just means that we cannot for certain predict which mutations would have popped up as it it were. We say a coin flip is random because we can't tell for certain which side it will land on even though statistically the odds are 50/50. But we can still know how probable the "randomness" of the coin flips is. It's not that all mutations are equally likely at all. I don't if I can accept that bad things are the exception not the rule. It definitely seems as if there is just as much evil as good in this world. In fact, the vast majority of the world doesn't have enough food to eat or clean water to drink. It certainly is a living hell to them. 3. I meant that if we are to share true happiness with God in heaven then it would have to be a mutual, reciprocal GIVING relationship of happiness otherwise there would be a disconnect. This would refute Pros point about true happiness not being able to be given. 4. Pro makes the assumption that all suffering is due to sin so those in heaven would feel happy that those suffering are getting their sins cleansed. That plainly is not true as their are children suffering due to no fault of their own. 5. Pro apparently clams that God can do evil, then. That raises the question of how God is benevolent in light of that revelation? I don't think his explanation holds any water, however. Imagine if I programmed a robot filled with evil desires but then punished him for killing people. That makes no sense as it was my fault in the first place. 6. They may have believed in non-divine magic (indeed, they did) but they were again not as gullible as Pro seems make it out. They still knew genuine "miracles" when they saw them like, say, rising from the dead. I'm not sure how God talking simultaneously to 1.2 million people wouldn't be classified as anything else but a miracle. But, ignoring that, you said that all of these people corroborated in one report that they all had the exact same experience in the exact same way. Despite the methodological issues of gaining that information the the modern judiciary method would still certainly cast doubt on this report. 7. Indeed, I attacked the believability of this in my preceding point. If we used modern standards it would seem that it's just made up if they all had the exact same story. Suppose that he wasn't claiming and actually showed that he could back up his claims as the Son of God (for the sake of argument) surely that'd be just as monumental, if not more monumental then the Pros multitudes of peoples wouldn't it? 8. I am confused as to having some prophet who performed miracles and who's records are still here today isn't incontrovertible in he same way that Con thinks God speaking to the multitudes are. 10. What? It says that non-orthodox Judaism has an evolving oral law right here: "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." (From Round 2 sources) That doesn't mean they don't have an oral tradition, though. Just that they think it is flexible.