God Exists Only in the Minds of His Followers

My opponent has confirmed he doesn't believe in God... but seems to be passionately arguing that he exists... I am thoroughly confused. Rebuttals: 1. God does not Exist 1.1 Descartes Argument My opponent concedes that what I have said is true, and prefaces their counterargument with the word "might." My argument stands that perfection's existence is irrational. 1.2 Lewis Argument Con has argued that if the laws of nature and physics have no purpose, then our thinking is an accident. To be blunt: No, it doesn't. If they're an accident or not is no concern to reasoning. Reasoning is our understanding of existence as we know it. Logic is sound whether or not existence is an accident, as logic does not depend on the origin, but on the consistency of natural laws. 1.3 Pascal's Wager Pascal's wager cannot be an argument for the God of the Bible. Why? Pascal's Wager is just an argument for God, period. Pascal's Wager applies equally to every religion that has ever existed. Allah and Zeus have just as much claim to it as the God of the Bible. This argument should be excluded henceforth, and saved for a debate on God in general. 1.4 Kant Argument "I think you'll find that among people that actually study the Bible... the number of atheists is much, much lower." Oh really? Might I see some evidence? The statistics supporting that people could honestly read the Bible from cover to cover and say, "Wow, this 'God' guy seems great!" Heck, just make it the Old Testament, where, by the way, the "God" in question is Yahweh Sabaoth, "God of the armies," otherwise known as the God of war among polytheistic Hebrews[1]. 2. Bible is inaccurate 2.1 Inaccuracy 2.1.1 Great Flood http://carm.org...: Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry... yup! Definitely just a bunch of secular scientists! That was sarcasm, for those who didn't pick it up. 2.1.2 Adam and Eve My opponent basically said that I have no argument on the merit that I let my sources argue for me. " ...so if you need to blow your top, so be it." Very well, you asked for it. When the Discovery Institute, an intelligent design defender, released the public statement "Dissent from Darwin," a list of scientists skeptical of evolution, which has garnered about 800 signatures fromas of 2011, The National Center for Science Education[2] began "Project Steve,"[3] which is a list of scientists with the name Steve who support evolution. Project Steve has around 1,100 Steves as of 2011, which should convince you it is a generally accepted scientific fact. If that's not enough, a study of the human genome[4] shows that there has been recent evolution in humans, which you specifically say there was no evidence for... which suggests you purposefully didn't research this at all. 2.1.3 Age of the Earth Despite different stances, Biblical literalists generally accept young-earth creationism, which has been completely destroyed by the decay in half-lives of radioactive isotopes. If the writers knew, they would have probably included something as monumentally important as the age of existence. This implies that they did NOT know. 2.2 Historical Accuracy 2.2.1 Jesus First Counter-Argument: Miracles Documented Where? Mentioned as second or third-hand accounts from eyewitnesses? And this proves that he is the son of God? I think not. Second Counter-Argument: Burning of the Temple of Jerusalem Destruction of possible of evidence does not constitute that the evidence was comprehensive, or there at all. 2.2.2 Israel Narrative "ontology (n.) - the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being" I think God might fall under this, and my opponent admits that the Israel narrative indeed has nothing to do with any ontological arguments. 2.3 Scientific Inaccuracy 2.3.1 Big Bang "In the beginning" Yep! That's definitely confirmation that the Bible supports the Big Bang theory! Another instance of sarcasm. The Genesis story is unscientific beyond imagining. 2.3.2 "Like a tent" "Four-dimensional" and "Impossible to model" I propose the Universe is NOT like a tent. You cannot confirm it is like a tent, and unconfirmed hypotheses are not science. 2.3.3 Space is a vacuum "I never said it was a perfect vacuum, and neither did the bible." Well, the bible said "nothingness" not "vacuum." So the Bible never said vacuum AT ALL. 2.3.4 Air has weight. If scientists took the Bible as a valid source of scientific knowledge, then they wouldn't be scientists, and they definitely wouldn't be religious. 2.3.5 Stars are Unique Actually, that's only if you already KNEW each star was unique, then you would know to cherrypick this Bible verse and interpret it as "proof" that the writers were aware of the scientific validity in all that pretty poetry they were writing. 2.3.6 Splendorous Science The moon has no "splendor" from a scientific standpoint, it just reflects light from the sun. It's an utterly unsplendorous hunk of rock. 2.3.7 Ocean Springs Another example of cherrypicking a Bible verse and interpreting it to make it "proof" that the writers of the Bible had divine knowledge about some obscure natural phenomenon. This is NOT how science works, nor how it should work. 2.3.8 Dinosaurs So the great meteor that wipes out a massive chunk of the Earth's species but magically spares a bunch of others that would be killed by such an event ISN'T mentioned in the Bible? No... no they don't mention dinosaurs in the Bible. They mention whales. 2.3.9 Neanderthals If Neanderthals are just "men with bone disease," then why does radiometric dating place them BEFORE biblical creation? And why are these "men with bone disease" scientifically accepted as an early species of man? Because they aren't "men with bone disease," and you just lied. Again. 3. Morals 3.1 Ok to kill kids? No. Because it wasn't God killing kids. It was people killing kids because they thought God wanted them to, which he doesn't. You, sir, just tried to justify child murder. 3.2 Ok to kill cursers? No. It's not God killing these people. It's people killing these people, and justifying it with God. You just tried to justify premeditated first-degree murder. 3.3 Ok to prize plunder? No. Because you didn't acknowledge the fact that this passage was indeed referring to forcing the widows of the men you'd just slaughtered in the name of God to marry you, in the name of God. This isn't a wild interpretation, it's a rational, secular interpretation. 3.4 Ok to insult God (Bonus Passage) Aparrently, yes! I do it quite frequently, actually! Despite this, that petty, child-murdering, slavery-supporting, anti-semitic, genocidal, misogynistic, megalomaniac in the sky hasn't sent any she-bears knocking at my door! Although it was apparently alright to butcher 42 young children for making fun of someone's BALD HEAD. At this point I think it's fair to say: Just stop insisting that God is just. Even if he exists, which he doesn't, he isn't. 4. The Invisible Pink Unicorn No, you cannot prove God, and you have not. Neither have you disproven the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Until you do, it's just as valid as God. Source(s): [1] - Attached Video http://www.youtube.com... [2] - http://ncse.com... [3] - http://ncse.com... [4] - http://news.nationalgeographic.com...