God do Exist

I would like to suggest that Pro be more specific in his debate structure in the future. He said this round is "Rebuttals from Round 3". I thought this meant rebutting everything from R3. Not just the new argument. Is a defense of our opening arguments going to be posted in the next round? Pro's New Argument: Biblical Archeology The argument from biblical archeology is now labeled a “Spiderman fallacy” which is a type of Composition fallacy “A recently coined logical fallacy. It follows that archaeologists 1,000 years from now unearth a collection of Spiderman comics. From the background art, they can tell it takes place in New York City. NYC is an actual place, as confirmed by archaeology. However, this does not mean that Spiderman existed.Often used to illustrate the flaw in the assertion by evangelical Christians that archaeologists unearthing biblical cities today "proves" that the Bible was written by a supernatural force.The Spiderman Fallacy is committed any time the discovery of a mundane element from a myth, legend, or story is taken to mean that ALL other parts of that story, even the supernatural, are also true.” [1] There is actually much evidence against biblical archaeology today. Matthew Sturgis said “A new generation of archaeologists has emerged...they are challenging the intellectual assumptions of their predecessors...During the years since World War II it has become harder and harder to escape this sense of doubt. The expected discoveries of specific biblical artifacts and buildings were simply not being made...Discrepancies between the biblical account and the ever increasing archaeological record become more noticeable and harder to ignore...Rather than using the Old Testament as a field guide, the current crop of archaeologists is increasingly putting the Bible aside...The very term biblical archaeology has become tainted, and is now rejected by many academics...The old quest to confirm the historical truths of the events in the Bible has been replaced by a new agenda: to build a full and detailed picture of life in the ancient Near East. If the Bible is consulted at all, it is approached with varying degrees of skepticism. The onus of proof has shifted: the text [of the Bible] is now considered historically unreliable until proven otherwise.” [2] Walls of Jericho In the 1930s, an archaeological expedition was led by a man named John Gerstang. He hoped to find evidence of the Jericho walls as described in the bible. The evidence from his journey came up to what he believed to be conclusive. He found broken fragments of pottery in some houses that were built over the walls and dated them to about 1400 B.C. In the time and place where the bible said! [3] However, further investigation continued by Kathleen Kenyon and she proved Gerstang to be wrong. She proved the walls were destroyed about a thousand years before Gerstang’s date! That's 2,300 B.C! Her interpretation is accepted by archaeologists today, not Gerstang’s! There also couldn't of been another wall, because the evidence between 1400 and 1300 BC shows there was only one tiny building and some tombs. Jericho wouldn't of been settled and they would've found just a few huts or possibly nothing at all in the time of 1300 B.C. The bible was wrong, again.[4][5][6][7] Pro's argument is based on the Spider man fallacy, furthermore archaeological evidence is now at odds with the bible and can actually be used as an argument against the bible. The resolution is negated Back to Pro for his conclusion. Sources [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com... [2] Sturgis, It Ain't Necessarily So: p36-3 [3] http://faculty.vassar.edu... [4] Ibid [5] Davidson & Leaney, Biblical Criticism: p46 [6] Fox, The Unauthorized Version: p226-227 [7] Stiebing, Out of the Desert: p46-47