The Christian God is Real

I thank Con for his response. We do know who the gospel writers were, who Paul was, who Peter was, and all of the other New Testament writers (besides Hebrews). Con, in saying that "We don"t know!" has stated a common misconception that someone who has not dug deep into history could make. We have so much evidence; it is just that Pro is not willing to look. We have evidence of Jesus from Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud, and Lucian (http://www.bethinking.org...). These are hard evidence of the existence of Jesus. Now, it is just a preposterous way of thinking that the gospels were written by random anonymous persons. First of all, Con provides absolutely no evidence to disprove who the gospel writers are; only that "they might have been written by someone else". We also have evidence from the early church fathers Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius, who all name Matthew as the author of the gospel attributed to him. For Mark, evidence comes from Papias, who said,"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in the exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterward, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." This can be found in the writings of Papias. Luke's authorship also is supported by Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory, Nazianze, and Jerome. John's authorship is supported by Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius). http://radicaltruth.net... Matthew and John were eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus and had written down their memoirs about the life and resurrection. Mark and Luke collected information from others and STILL ended up with a very similar story about Jesus' life, even though they had not witnessed it. Jesus could not have tried to fulfill the old prophecies, over 300 of them, all by himself. Some were out of his control, like how his clothes would be divided up and that he would be pierced in the side. It is literally impossible for Jesus to try and fulfill all of these prophecies. http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org... "The notion that animals cannot love or have other feelings is preposterous". This idea is the one that is preposterous. Animals have only the instinct to do something. If I give a dog something to eat, on instinct it would mark me as a potential food giver and give to me what is conceived as "love." God gave animals the instinct to protect their young; how would they reproduce of they didn't? But this is just but an instinct and cannot be expressed like the love in between humans. I will say one last thing about the fine-tuning of life; as of now, there is absolutely no way of proving that life can arise without energy and the perfect amount of other physical constants. This is a mere speculation with absolutely no evidence supporting it. From our perspective, we know that life can only happen with the perfect physical constants or we would never be here today. This is the most logical way of thinking that believing just a mere assertion without any evidence. This is all I have to say. The resurrection of Jesus is written by reliable, non-anonymous people. The fine-tuning argument t shows that life could have only commenced with certain requirements, and those requirements were met on Earth. The origin of life points to God because something cannot come out of nothing. Morality in man could not possibly be made by evolution; the fact that humans contemplate about God means that God had implanted the thought into our minds. Now, I probably did not win the arguments for all of these points, but that is for you, the voter or reader, to decide. I thank my opponent and all of the readers for joining me to this debate. I wish all of you a good day, and this is all for me.