The Judeo/Christian god most likely exists

No Proof If Con objects to my color analogy, let's use a famous one from philosophy class: I cannot prove that I am not a brain in a jar being stimulated to believe that I am a person with experiences. No amount of science can prove or disprove it.One cannot find "evidence" of God in science, but there are implications of him. Humanity is innately wired towards god-belief [1], every age and culture in all of human history attests gods and miracles (including today, where 98% of the globe is religious), and we have holy books reporting accurate history right alongside divine interventions. There is clearly more to it than "silly Christians and their sky-daddy."So, these un-scientific atheists don't bother themselves with "thinking too much about reality and the factual basis for atheism, but rather to trust" that it's true?EvilI said "trusting those who love you," not "trusting those you love." Someone who loves you won't abuse you. Please read what I write more carefully.The grandfather paradox is an example of why past events can't be altered. Solving the omniscience paradox does not require the past to be altered. If Person A chooses X rather than Y, Person B will see a future that has X rather than Y.I don't have room to address the unreached so here's a source: [2]- It also doesn't mention the Big Bang or Newton's laws, because it exists to declare God as Creator, not to explain the specifics of his creational methods.- Surely Con is not suggesting that God wait millenia to reveal himself to "us." Moreover, does China's literacy and historical records make Pan Gu's existence more likely than Yahweh's?- Con's red herring is just a restatement of the Problem of Evil. God may allow suffering for a greater purpose, but he isn't the one causing it. I suggest reading C.S. Lewis on this topic.- Con's position is a tautology: God is false, so miracles are false, so God is false. Furthermore, I doubt there was an abundance of time-travellers dazzling the Hebrews with iPhones. Try again.- I don't have room to explain the theology of Hell, either: [3]Forgiveness is not dismissal. I am horrified by Dahmer's actions, but I refuse to put limits on who can and cannot be forgiven.Not Unique/DivineSo, Matt. 15:3-6 and 19:19, Mark 10:19, John 19:26-27, and Luke 18:20, which show Jesus' high respect for honoring one's parents (including his own) should be ignored in favor of taking an over-literal interpretation of a single verse? Maybe I'm not the one being mislead.Most of Leviticus refers to ceremonial and civil laws of Israel. The bible makes it astonishingly clear that they no longer apply because Jesus fulfilled them (Acts 10:13-15, Gal. 3:23-25, Rom. 6:14, Rom. 7:1-6, etc). We are still under the moral laws (some of which are discussed in Leviticus), which Jesus affirmed and expanded (Matt 5:21-22, Matt 5:28-28, Matt. 19:8-9). This is pretty basic theology.The Israelites were forced by circumstance (or chose) to follow inferior standards—this does not mean they were ignorant of preferable alternatives; the first time "love your neighbour as yourself" appears is in Leviticus. Christians base their morals on the teachings of Jesus, who acknowledged that the "Iron Age tribes" didn't always represent the morality that God wanted, and that their stubbornness forced God's hand in at least some cases, if not all (Matt 19:7-9).Numbers states that you must not accept a ransom for a murderer, which very strongly implies that one could offer ransoms for other crimes, thus that the bible only describes the maximums.If Con wants a straight answer on the firmament, it's the atmosphere/sky, waters above are clouds and vapor, and even if they're not, it doesn't matter, as I've already explained.Con hand-waves my answer to the differing genealogies rather than refuting it."They weren't witnesses so the NT is false so they weren't witnesses" is another tautology. If I can't use them, neither can you.It defies logic to say that Luke (who even Sir William Ramsey described as an "unsurpassed" historian) would just "forget" to mention the destruction of the temple in AD 70, or overlook the murders of Paul and James in the AD 60's in Acts, his later volume, unless these events hadn't happened yet. At worst, we're looking at 30-40 years plus for Luke's Gospel.The fact that we even know Luke's Gospel was revised (Con's link lists some of the changes, and again, none of them are doctrine) means that we have un-revised texts to compare it to. This is the point I was making by appealing to "big numbers" in the first place. Please read up on textual criticism."Mark is a collection of traditions" can be shaved with Hitchens' Razor. Con's source offers no reasons for holding this view, but does offer reasons behind the traditional view.Con, your article affirms the translation of "camel" as correct, and denies the existence of the gate as false, which is exactly what I said last round.CosmologySo, you can't assume that X is Y unless you can prove that X is Y? There goes all of scientific theory. According to Con's beloved Occam's Razor, an infinite recursion of creators, rather than a single, eternal Creator, multiplies entities beyond necessity.Let's use this logic: I believe that this creature is a cow. You say it's an elephant. But look, all the evidence for this so-called "elephant" lines up with it being a cow—the trunk, the tusks, the big ears. Thus, it is a cow. It couldn't possibly be an error in my definition of a cow, because semantics are irrelevant in light of evidence. Please read the article I linked in Round 3.MoralityI definitely don't have the space to address the biggest ethical complaints in the bible: [4], [5], [6].Lord of the Flies describes literally the exact opposite of humanity's altruism. It demonstrates how humans should logically behave, as I've discussed, given that evolution considers everything "a matter of survival," but it doesn't do much to help Con's case.I confess, "lucky chance" may not have been Dawkins, but he is quoted as saying "I am not advocating a morality based on evolution," which is a bizarre claim from a man who rejects any other source for it.People will do evil things if they think it's morally justified to do them. Your religion, race, or class are irrelevant to this fact. Some religious people agree with genital mutilation despite what science says, and some atheists agree with eugenics despite what history says. No one gets to claim moral superiority.ResurrectionOnce again, Con misses my point. If we are going to use Occam's Razor as a standard rather than guide, then we will have to shave receivers and transmitters in favor of little men right alongside atheism in favor of God. What I am actually trying to illustrate is that this is not a solution Con wants, and thus they should be a lot more careful with what they claim the razor does and does not apply to.Evidence for the resurrection: accounts of it in historically reliable documents. Explosive growth of Christianity in the centers of persecution. Jews clearly unable to present Christ's body as refutation. Dates of earliest attestation of the resurrection too early to be legendary (1-3 years). Hostile witnesses affirming the resurrection belief, not bothering to deny the event as mythical. Resurrection accounts circulated within the lifetimes of those able to refute it. This is just some of the evidence, and Con rejects it in favor of Hume's (refuted) stance on miracles.In conclusion, I argue that: morality, cosmology, and psychology imply a god, history demands the J/C God, and ignorance of theology and textual criticism are bad reasons to reject the bible as history. My thanks to Con for a very engaging debate! It's been fun! Sources:[1] http://theatln.tc...[2] http://christianthinktank.com...[3] http://bit.ly...[4] http://bit.ly... (664 - 665)[5] http://christianthinktank.com...[6] http://christianthinktank.com...