Con (Theist) Will Not Fulfill His/Her Burden of Proof in Establishing The Existence Of God

As per the conditions, this will be my last round to clarify positions and offer rebuttals. In regards to the source of the standing sun, though both I and my opponent are in agreement on the Earth's rotation about the Sun, I was trying to emphasize that there are indeed other cultures in existence with records of a 'standing sun', contrary to what Pro stated in the first round. The source in question references a wide range of its own sources. Ockham's Razor: I would like to repeat here what was stated in the previous round. "In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result. " (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Rebuttals: Pro: "We certainly do know that genocide, slavery, human sacrifice, and rape are all bad ways to run the world yet the Torah consistently advocates it. " I was reluctant to get into such a discussion, mainly because it involves a lot of tedious philosophy. Many of these accusations delve right into the heart of what constitutes good and evil, making it difficult to answer sufficiently. (Specifically in the last round of the debate , where I cannot respond to any refutations. ) 1) In regards to genocide: It's important to remember what time period these commandments were given. It was during a time when a pacifist stance would have been suicide. The world hadn't developed yet to a point where peace was seen as a legitimate moral value; land belonged to those that had conquered it and defended their territory. Now, even given that, the Jewish nation's approach to war is, as far as I am aware, unique to those times. The passage in Deuteronomy Pro quoted, when taken solely in that context, does seem to insinuate an immoral G-d. However, a few chapters later, there is another passage stating prerequisites for going out to war. "When you approach a city to do battle with it you should call to it in peace. And if they respond in peace and they open the city to you, all the people in the city shall pay taxes to you and be subservient. And if they do not make peace with you, you shall wage war with them and you may besiege them. " (Deuteronomy 20:10-12) In addition, a Jewish army cannot surround his enemy completely on all sides. One side must be left open to allow those that wish to flee the opportunity, thus preventing unnecessary bloodshed. (. http://judaism.about.com...) 2) Slavery: I had meant to brief. Here I will post a link to an article dealing with the philosophy behind slavery in Judaism, without getting into it too much myself. (. http://www.chabad.org...) The problem with not taking the word of the 'apologists' is that these words are a part of the Jewish Oral Torah, an integral piece of Jewish tradition. In Judaism, the Oral and Written Torah go hand in hand. (The above link also details an explanation of why that is the case. ) One cannot rely on the words of only one to get a complete picture of Jewish structure. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) To brush aside the fact that these slaves were actually indentured servants misses the point. 3) Human Sacrifice: Note that just because a story mentions something immoral doesn't mean the author advocates it. As far as I am aware, there are only two cases mentioned throughout the Tanach that deal with human sacrifice. One, in the Torah, of Isaac, and one, in Prophets, concerning Jepthath's daughter. Both cases demonstrate that Judaism finds human sacrifice to be a negative act and actually prohibits it. (. http://www.jewfaq.org... - see section concerning Isaac) What many neglect to mention while bringing this passage up as evidence of G-d's 'immorality', is that G-d essentially commands Abraham not to kill his son at the end. Pro: "I can only hope that Con does not see this story as admirable because frankly it is disgusting and should be reason alone to never want to worship such a God regardless of whether he exists or not. " This is an appeal to disgust and holds no authentic basis. 4) Rape: On the contrary, marriage is not an obligation of the rape victim, rather, an obligation of the rapist if, and only if, the victim consents. Why would a victim want to marry her rapist? In those days, the stigma associated with rape may have made it difficult for the victim to find a marriage partner. Thus, she has the option of marrying her rapist - should she want to - where he has no possibility of opting out of the marriage. She, on the other hand, may divorce him, but he may not initiate the proceedings. (. http://www.chabad.org...) (. http://www.aish.com...) So, though I appreciate my opponent's concern for my well-being, he needn't worry. I would certainly like to challenge Pro on his views of women in Judaism, but don't have the space to do so here. Perhaps we can 'have a go' at it in another debate. For those interested, here's a source for now. (. http://www.mechon-mamre.org...) Pro: "All of a sudden Con becomes a skeptic in regards to mass revelation of another religion. " On the contrary, I outlined specific regulations that make the story of mass revelation unique to Judaism, i. e. transmission never being dependent on an individual. It seems there is some confusion about the particular aspects that make it unique to Judaism, so I'm going to offer another explanation and certainly hope it suffices. The historical belief concerning national revelation at Sinai is widespread among the Jewish people, as is the belief that this information has been passed down reliably from generation to generation since the event transpired. There are two possibilities. One, it is true. Two, it was sold to the Jewish people as an intentional or unintentional deception. Note that at no point in time could a whole nation have been deceived into the content of such a story. This is because Judaism makes the outlandish claim that every generation, including the current generation, received the tradition from their parents. The Jewish people would never have embraced the narrative of revelation, unless their parents had already told them the story. At no point would the Jewish nation have bought the lie that millions of their ancestors witnessed this revelation and that it was passed down reliably from generation to generation, unless all (or at least the majority) of the parents had already told them, and unless the people were already a sizable nation. That last point is integral because it shows that the lie couldn't have been spread gradually by a small number of people over time. To tell tales of a great nation when no such nation is in existence would be a clear example of a lie that IS verifiable. Pro claims that the belief in the resurrection of Jesus is not dependent on one person, but I repeat again that it is. Despite accounts of 500 witnesses, the only available testimony of those 500 witnesses is from Paul, who wrote the account himself in the New Testament. This is an example of how tradition can start from a false account of one person and spread. The claim from Judaism however doesn't fit that bill because it would require an entire nation to be present where (this is assuming its false-ness) there was none. The existence of a Jewish nation is a necessary requirement in order to spread such a lie. This is what makes Judaism's claim unique. Even the spreading of the story as a lie (at any point in time in Jewish history) would require an entire Jewish nation to be present. The anecdotal evidence is clearly different regarding the two cases. In one case, the evidence is substantiated only by the claims of a single person. In the other, at all points in time, an entire Jewish nation that witnessed those events would be necessary to spread such a 'lie', requiring the events in question to have occurred in order for them to be spread. I am now providing a link that demonstrates the unbroken chain from the event at Sinai to the people alive today. (. http://www.simpletoremember.com...) The problem with finding a miracle that has a firm scientific consensus is finding scientists without their own questionable integrity. The link Pro gives doesn't debunk the science, rather discusses the possible bias of the scientist involved. A double standard is set up in the scientific world where any religious man is immediately labeled as biased and their findings (specifically in regards to concerns about G-d and the bible) dubious. On the other hand, scientist's blatant rejection of anything in the bible isn't considered a bias. Take Albert Einstein, for instance. On hearing about the possibility of an expanding universe, he said the circumstance 'irritated him' because it implied a beginning and a beginning implied a Creator. He later said this was the biggest error in his career. (. http://mypage.direct.ca...) The last point I would like to make before concluding is a point already stated in round one. Natural phenomena are reoccurring, but no other nation has passed on a chain of transmission originating from a sizable group of people and lived to tell about it. (The reason being that if the claim genuinely was false, it would fall away easily. ) Assuming that the phenomenon could be explained naturally, history should be replete with stories of mass revelation substantiated by large groups of people; however it is not. I once again pose my challenge to Pro to find another nation that experienced national revelation where the transmission was NOT dependent on an individual.