If a god exist, he is a terrible communicator.

Thank you Con for your response. Lets review, In my opening argument I defined the characteristics of a good communicator. I described what we should expect to see from an audience which has been delivered a message from someone who is a good communicator, cohesive understanding. Then I pointed out the evidence of religious confusion that is prevalent in the world. This evidence of religious confusion is evidence of poor communication. Now lets review Con's rebuttal. Paragraph 1(P1) An opening thank you. (P2) Con makes some general descriptions of text and language questions. But there is no attempt to call into question the points I made and no argument that there has been good communication. (P3) Con in this paragraph points out a "common thread" of belief that is prevalent in human culture. But common thread of belief doesn't correlate with good communication. Superstition in general is a commonly held belief in all human cultures, lucky rabbits feet, don't walk under a ladder, horoscopes, fortune cookies, black cat, horse shoes, ext. There are literally hundreds of thousands of different superstitious beliefs in the world. We wouldn't argue that these superstitious beliefs are evidence of good communication. Con doesn't even argue that widely held religious belief is evidence of good communication. Con's (P3) doesn't support his position. (P4) Doesn't argue for good communication or against the points I raised at all. (P4) Morality? This paragraph doesn't even mention communication. (P5) "It is the recipient's responsibility...." Con doesn't argue that good communication has occurred, doesn't attack my points, instead argue that it is the message receivers duty to find the message. That isn't even communicating. That certainly cannot be traits of a good communicator. (P6) "Perhaps one day, we may come to read the entire script of God's handwriting and on that day, communication will be on a different dimension that transcends our current primitive reality." Con concedes the point in this sentence. Effectively acknowledging that we still don't have a complete understanding. He asserts in a "different dimension" we may come to understand the message. True or not, this is a concession that the message isn't understood. A misunderstood message is evidence of poor communication, Con concedes the evidence. (P7) Nothing here but a quote from Einstein. Communication isn't addressed. Review of the review. Con's rebuttal has not refuted the points raised in my opening argument. Con's (P6) concedes the evidence that we are currently in a position in which we don't understand the message. The Pro position holds the stronger argument. Further Illustration Let's imagine we are neutral observes in a classroom of 100 students. In this classroom, we see no instructor. However, as we mingle with the class, we come to learn many of the students believe they have received instruction from an instructor. We discus with the students what their homework assignments are, the following is what the tell us. A. 28 students believe homework is in geometry book, cannot agree on which problems B. 21 students believe homework is in algebra book, cannot agree on which problems C. 13 students believe homework is in calculus book, cannot agree on which problems D. 11 students are completely indifferent and have no position on homework at all E. 5 students believe homework is in a basic multiplication book, cannot agree on which problems F. 5 students believe homework is to meditate on math G. 2 students believe the homework is to be done on an abacus H. 2 students don't believe there is an instructor and no homework was given. I. 13 remaining students all hold individual beliefs on any homework assignments. Now we, as neutral observers, reconvene at the back of the room. We ask ourselves a question. Has the instructor communicated well with the classroom? I ask you to consider this question honestly. Do you think the above example points to good communication on the instructors part? If you believe this above example points to good communication, then you should vote for Con's position. If recognize, what seems to be clear, that the instructor has left his classroom largely confused, and has done an overall terrible job of communicating clear instructions to his classroom, then you should vote to support the Pro position. Clarity on the above example: A=Christianity, B=Islam, C=Hinduism, D=No religion, E=Chinese Folk religion, F=Buddhism, G=tribal religions, H=Atheist, I=various other religions. The classroom example is just a microcosm of a larger religious world. If the classroom example leads us to conclude the instructor hasn't communicated clearly with the students, we must conclude that if a god exist, he hasn't clearly communicated with the people of Earth. They are the same example. http://www.howmanyarethere.net... In conclusion, we have defined the qualities of a good communicator. We have discussed what we expect to see when good communication has occurred. We have examined the evidence. The evidence of confusion points to poor communication. Con's opening argument hasn't refuted the evidence. Con's opening argument doesn't contest the definition of a good communicator. Con's opening argument (P6) acknowledges a message that isn't understood and suggest in the future it may be. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Pro position has supported itself with definition, argument, and evidence. The Con position hasn't objected to the definition. The Con position hasn't objected to the argument. The Con position hasn't objected to the prediction. The Cons position hasn't objected to the evidence and has agreed with it at some points. The Pro position holds the stronger argument. I would like to thank those who've read the arguments and encourage you to vote for the stronger position. Thank you Thank you for your time Con.