God does exist

Thank you, Anti-Atheist, for completing this debate. If I had known you forfeited so many debates before, I probably wouldn't have accepted, but I'm glad you stuck with this one.The ontological argumentI showed in the last round that every argument Pro used to prove that a MGB exists equally applies to the non-existence of a MGB, and his responses are barely coherent. After ignoring my argument for the non-existence of MGB, he advanced an argument in an attempt to show that I couldn've have possibly done such a thing. One of the premises in his argument is that "If god doesnt exist in 1 world it can"t be extended to every possible world." However, I showed that if a MGB doesn't exist in one workd, then it can be extended in every possible world. A MGB can only exist if it exists in all possible worlds. So if there is just one possible world in which a MGB doesn't exist, then a MGB doesn't exist in any possible world at all.The moral agumentPro engaged in motive-mongering, saying I avoided Matt Slick's questions so I could escape his rebuttals. However, it's not fair to ask a bunch of questions of your opponent. It takes a lot more characters to answer questions than to ask them, so I judiciously chose only to respond to arguments. I'll briefly address these questions, though, since I have a little room:Where do you get your morals from if morals are not objective. Why should you judge Nazi Germany if morals are not objective. If morals are subjective why should anyone follow your standerd.The last two questions commit the fallacy of complex question. They assume there is an objective standard of right and wrong, which I do not grant. Why should I judge Nazi Germany? There's no "should" about it. Why should anybody follow my standards? There's no "should" about it. In answer to the first question, my sense of morality comes from my own conscience. You don't have to believe in objective morality in order to value people anymore than you have to believe in objectively good food in order to appreciate ice cream.After refuting Pro's five arguments for objective morality, this is how he responded to my refutations:1. This proves morality is objective. Because of the sense in cultures would have to be an objective standard in our minds2. It's not an ad hominem. As people who deny objective morality follow a morality that is objective.3. I've demonstrated it.4. Not an ad populem. As the Philos know whats up.5. So atheists believe silly things? I know that.3-5 are non-responses. They don't grapple with what I said, and they don't advance any argument, so they can be ignored. 1 reveals Pro's confusion about what it means for a moral statement to be objectively true. It does not depend on whether anybody believes it or not. 2 reveals Pro's confusion about what an ad hominem fallacy is. You cannot refute a person's view by pointing out an inconsistency in how they live.The Christological argumentPro thinks I begged the question by saying the resurrection is improbable since it's only improbable if God doesn't exist. But that is not why I say it's improbable. Even if God exists, it's still improbable. How many people has God raised from the dead in the course of human history? Even if you grant all the claims of resurrections, they're still extremely rare compared to the number of people who have died in the last 4000 years. And let's be honest, even if you're a devout Christian, you're going to have a hard time believing it if somebody tells you that your dead relative has come back to life. What are the chances of that?If Pro denies that resurrections are improbable on the basis that God exists, then he is the one who is begging the question.I did not straw man the die for a lie argument. I did not say anything like, "According to the die for a lie argument, if you die for some belief, then it must be true." It's actually Pro who is strawmanning me since I never said that.Pro gives a four reasons for why it's unlikely the disciples lied about the resurrection (another cut and paste job from Carm):1.They would need an elaborate plan involving many unpredictable elements: guards, other witnesses, etc.They didn't start preaching the resurrection until 40 days after the event. Guards would've been a non-issue at that point. Other witnesses would've been unnecessary, but it was a happy accident that other people started claiming to have seen Jesus, too.Pulling off a hoax is not that difficult. Joseph Smith got several people to sign a statement saying they saw the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated. But those plates never existed, and none of those people saw anything.2.The disciples had no motive to lie, especially since it meant risking their lives.I already responded to this. The motive is honor, power, and prestigue. People frequently risk their lives for vain ambition.[1] Besides, it's at least more plausible than a corpse coming back to life.3.The guards at the tomb would have to be bribed.No, they wouldn't. Remember, they didn't start preaching until 40 days after Jesus died. Besides, Pro never showed that there were any guards at the tomb. Matthew is the only one that mentions them.Various witnesses not involved with the disciples would have to be obtained in order to validate the story.Not necessary, as I've already explained.But this means that a strong incentive would have to be offered to the additional witnesses since their story would likely get them in deep trouble with the Jewish leadership.People love to tell fantastic stories. That's why there's so many people claiming to have seen UFO's. And this assumes wide-spread Jewish persecution from the very inception of the church, but according to Acts, very few people ran into trouble with the Jews. It was mostly just the leadership, and even with them it was rare. We find them preaching in synogogues week after week without being harmed.4.The apostle Paul. He is a wild card. What illegitimate thing would motivate him to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus when it didn't happen? Remember, he was a heavy persecutor of the church. Something happened to change him. According to him, it was the appearance of the risen Lord Jesus.A couple of things could've motivated Paul--a desire to become a respected apostle, guilt for the persecution, or maybe he had a vision or hallucination of Jesus that convinced him Jesus had risen. Who knows? We don't have to answer that question to have reasonable doubt that Jesus was raised from the dead.Pro did another cut and paste job to answer my hallucination scenario (I feel like I'm debating everybody on the internet except Pro).First, he says nobody was expecting Jesus to rise, and Jews only believed in a general resurrection. That's false since Jesus predicted his resurrection, and many Jews thought Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead (Matthew 14:2).Second, he pointed out that some people who were converted because of an appearance were not initially followers of Jesus and so couldn't have expected him. But that is irrelevant to my scenario in which Peter is the only one who saw Jesus and after convincing others that Jesus had risen, they, too, began to claim to have seen Jesus. They were converted by Peter, not by seeing Jesus themselves.Third, he claims that hallucinations are individual and cannot happen in groups. But that is irrelevant to my scenario in which Peter was the only person to have a hallucination. Besides, people sometimes do see things in groups that aren't there, e.g. Marian apparitions, faces in clouds, or Mother Theresa in a cinnamon roll.In the end, Pro said:Jesus is the risen God as I have proven 100% beyond shadow of a doubt. Some atheists may even convert reading this debate.Well, you have to admire his optimism.ConclusionThank you for coming to tonight's debate. Please vote.[1] Over half of the Roman emperors were murdered. http://www.allempires.com...