It is more reasonable to believe in the Christian God than not to

Thanks, Pro! Guilty or Not Guilty? Pro has dropped all of my arguments. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Plagues, The Exodus, and the great Flood all have no evidence to back them as actual events (at least as described in the Bible). Bible2000 implicitly agreed there is a reasonable expectation for evidence by attempting to provide evidence for these accounts. Thus, he agrees absence of evidence is evidence of absence when there is a reasonable expectation for evidence, and there is a reasonable expectation of evidence in these cases. His evidence was inadequate due to his sources lacking any credibility. Since he has been met by a dead end in this regard, he now disregards this lack of evidence as irrelevant. There are two problems with this approach: 1. If Pro does not rely on objective evidence for his belief in the Christian god, then he relies completely on the claims of the Bible. It is a circular argument. The claim of YHWH and the ‘evidence’ for YHWH cannot come from the same source. It relies on the conclusion being built into the premise. Essentially, the Bible is not self-authenticating. 2. Secondly, Pro is attempting to move the goalposts. He implicitly acknowledged lack of evidence would be problematic but when lack of evidence was shown to be a reality, Bible2000 arbitrarily attempts to supply reasons why lack of evidence offers no reasonable disqualification for his belief. Overall, Pro dropping these arguments should be considered a strike against the reasonableness of his position, and a check for me. Rebuttals I did not realize it at first, but Pro is attempting a bit of a Gish Gallop strategy. He provides many arguments with little explanation knowing that to argue against them will take more effort from me than it took for him to simply state them. In the interest of fairness, I will take on his syllogism since most of his points are covered there anyway, and then I will hit the highlights on a few specific comments and arguments outside of this as my character limitations allow for. I would like the voters to keep this in mind if I am not able to respond to something specifically. Brief Summary P1) Evidence shows all religions have a common source, a truth revealed by God which was chaged by religion over time. P1. I am not sure what evidence Pro is referring to in order to support this premise. Religions are all different, and they have not been around as long as humanity. In fact, the oldest religion we know of has only been around for 6000 years, so for 95% of humanity’s existence no religion existed. Plus, on a side note, if religion changed the truth revealed by god, then how can an individual know the Christian god is the deity responsible for this truth? Christianity was not first or last in the long line of religions. P2) That truth has been preserved in God's word. P2. The obvious question is How do you know the truth is preserved in the Bible? The answer to this and the following question will lead us in a big circle that is only accepted by those who already believe. P3) God's word must be internally consistent. Sure, I will agree with this premise, but the Bible is not internally consistent. Look at the expectations of the Messiah in the OT testament and compare then to the representation of the Messiah by Jesus in the New Testament. “Orthodox views have generally held that the Messiah will be descended from his father through the line of King David,[5] and will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, father a male heir and re-institute the Sanhedrin, among other things.” [3] Jesus could not be descended from David through his father’s line since he had no biological father. The Jews were not gathered, there was no peace, the 2nd temple still stood – Jesus could not have rebuilt it in his lifetime, and he certainly did not have any children that the Bible (or any other source) mentions. Jesus does not fulfill the Old Testament expectations, yet the New Testament establishes him as the Messiah. This is not an internally consistent Bible, and the Bible does not agree with this premise. P4) God's word must be historically accurate. Technically, the word of god need not speak of any historical events, but sure, the historicity (if there is any) must be accurate, and any flaws will suggest it is not the work of an omniscient being. The Bible is not without its flaws. I have already established the domesticated camel anachronisms in the Bible. The Bible does not hold to this premise. P5) God's word must be in harmony with established scientific facts. This is similar to the historicity in that scientific facts need not be in the holy book of any deity, but if they are there, then sure, they must be accurate. I have already established the order of sea animals, birds, and land animals came to be (according to the Bible), and the manipulation of the offspring coloring by Jacob, are not in harmony with scientific facts. The flaws are not limited to these two inaccuracies either. P6) God's word must demonstrate to be protected by God despite of opposition. I’m not sure how this premise follows from anything, but sure, I’ll go along. The Bible has not been perfectly preserved. There are additions, deletions, typos, mistranslations, etc., so to claim the Bible is ‘preserved’ is at best a guess. We don’t know what the originals manuscript actually said (they don't exist anymore), not to mention, the copies we do have disagree. “But in the past 100 years or so, tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament have been discovered, dating back centuries. And what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the books differ significantly from earlier ones—in fact, even copies from the same time periods differ from each other. “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament,” says Dr. Bart D. Ehrman.” [4] P7) God's word must have qualities that make it extraordinary when compared to other "holy" books. I can agree with this premise, but I do not contrast holy books, so I have nothing to add here. P8) God's word must demonstrate God's power through, for example, fulfilled prophecies and Science discovered at a later date. …and the prophecies and science must never be flawed. I have already addressed both of these earlier in the debate. P9) All the premises above are true about the Bible. This is not true, plus I have never seen a premise to state the other premises are true! This seems redundant. Obviously, you believe your premises are true, otherwise you must accept your conclusion would not be valid. P10) The Bible is God's word. This is begging the question as the graphic above illustrates. (circular) C) It is more reasonable to believe in the Christian God than not to.The conclusion is not supported by the premises. Highlights! Historical Accuracy I know this was covered in the last section, but I must point out a serious flaw in Pro's quote. "Only 3% of the ancient past has survived, mostly underground. Of the buried stuff only 3% has been excavated. Of dug-up materials only 3% have been adequately published. You figure it out. Could someone piece together your personal history using 3% of 3% of 3% of the stuff you throw away? Someone might even 'prove' you didn't exist!"For this statement to make any sense, we must know the entirety of what has survived from the ancient past, and the entirety of what is still buried before we can know only 3% of either is all we have. We do not know what 100% of either are!! That being said, I find the claim of only 3% of discovered materials to be dubious considering the source. The Bible and Science Pro acknowledges the Bible is not consistent with science by his argument. He cannot claim the Bible is consistent with science while at the same time arguing against discrepancies between the Bible and science. Either the Bible and science are kosher, or they are not. I have established they are not, and I consider this to be a concession by Pro to that fact.Jacob's ignorance of Genetics. I will assume this story is true for the sake of the argument, but this is yet another account from the Bible where there is no evidence it ever happened. That being said, if the Christian god truly had anything to do with this account, then sticks of any color should not be necessary. However, they were (as far as Jacob was concerned), and Jacob’s explanation is merely an argument from ignorance (God helped me because Laban was cheating me). It should also be noted, God never told Jacob," That would have never worked without my help". The author of Genesis could have merely been suggesting God gave Jacob the idea, not that Jacob's idea was absurd. I see no reason to reject that the author and/or Jacob believed the sticks were necessary for this genetic lottery to occur. Creation order of birds? While it is true, I nor any scientists were there millions/billions of years ago, there are many lines of evidence in various fields that all lead us in the same direction concerning evolution. These would include “geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing, and many other sciences” [1] [2] It is dubious to reject this evidence for a belief with no evidence. This being said, Pro has shown his preference to take the Bible version without evidence over the scientific explanation with many lines of evidence. I encourage the voters to consider if his position on this matter is reasonable. I submit - No. That is all the space I have. I look forward to Pro's conclusion! Back to you, Bible2000.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.skeptic.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.newsweek.com...