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

Thanks to my opponent for his response. Firstly, I'd like to make a blanket apology to Pro and to the readers regarding the sources used for evidence of Joshua's standing sun. My opponent was correct in saying that they were both unreliable. I, myself, am actually appalled at the nonsense sited in the second source, and can only take full responsibility for not reading the source properly before posting it. I'd like to offer my sincerest apologies and assurance that it will not happen again. Inductive Arguments: My purpose in bringing up scientific theories was not, as Con suggested, to compare my argument to, say, the theory of evolution or any other scientific theory. It was to show that there is a validity in inductive reasoning and as long as I can bring relevant facts supporting my position, the inductive reasoning behind my argument alone should not be a reason to discredit the argument. Ockham's Razor: While an interesting argument, there are a few major problems here. One, the majority of questions Pro ask concern the existence of G-d, not the revelation at Sinai. Two, it assumes there ARE more questions involved in my theory as opposed to my opponent's. Assuming Con is correct, then how did the lie start? Was it with an individual or a group? How did it spread over time? How would a group of people come to believe a fabrication that is easily verifiable? Last but not least, 'in science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.' (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor) as such, applying Ockham's Razor to my arguments, does not, in fact, make them 'fall apart'. In response to Pro's rhetorical question, I answer, (somewhat humorously, granted) only G-d knows. I often hear questions like these, (Why would G-d let there be evil in the world? Why doesn't He appear to us all?) but they unfortunately are not valid questions to ask in relation to the problem. The idea of an all-knowing G-d take away any authenticity to questions like this because the questions presuppose that we know what the proper way to run the world is. This also falls into the category of philosophical discussion and even if I were to provide an answer, wouldn't support my argument in any which way. Other Religions: The claim that this is a case of special pleading is incorrect. I outlined several characteristics in the previous rounds that make my argument unique to Judaism. The transmission of every other religion can be traced back to an INDIVIDUAL. (By the way, I capitalize for emphasis. The device I'm currently using does not support rich format, so I cannot italicize.) In the previous round, I went through several well-known religions showing how, at some point in their history, one person was responsible for transmission. In regards to the example Pro brings (this is also mentioned in the previous round), Apostle Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, including Corinthians, gets his credentials because he experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus and subsequently converted. He then received the Gospel from Jesus himself. This means that we must believe Paul hasn't just made this up in order to place any credibility in the story. I challenge Pro to come up with another religion containing a tradition of mass revelation that was not dependent on the word of one person for transmission. Though Abraham and Noah were indeed individuals, the stories related about them come BEFORE the story of mass revelation. Even assuming that all the stories about them are false, we cannot explain the revelation away because transmission of the Torah was never dependent on an individual after that point. Considering I have not been using special pleading to argue the Kuzari Principle, that principle still legitimizes the authenticity of the Torah. I'd like to explain briefly why mass revelation is such an issue to get around. The oldest surviving Hebrew bible manuscripts date back to 2nd Century BCE. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) This is around the time period Alexander the Great lived. Assuming someone introduced the texts at that point, how does he convince multitudes of people that G-d spoke to their ancestors at Mt. Sinai? Despite the low life expectancy, though Pro seems to leave this out, there is still a possibility of verifying such a story with one's parents. If I say I magically levitated in the air and received divine inspiration from G-d, though you can't prove that to be true, you couldn't prove it to be untrue either. However, if I said your cousins saw me levitate in the air, that could easily be checked. The claim brought by the Jewish people is verifiable. A story as integral as mass revelation is something that would be passed down through the generations. So how would this person trying to convince people to convert to Judaism explain why their parents never heard anything about a mass revelation? Evidence: I'm not sure what evidence Pro is looking for, and perhaps I didn't have a firm understanding of what circular reasoning was. I had assumed Pro was implying miracles can't happen because they don't obey the natural laws of science, which, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is circular reasoning. Though, he did explain that was not his intention, so the error comes in of my understanding of his initial argument. Thanks for clearing that up. Once again, I'm not sure what evidence my opponent is looking for. There are stories of remains of chariot wheels in the Red Sea, suggesting the crossing of the Red Sea was, indeed, accurate. (http://www.wnd.com...) Also, in regards to Joshua's 'stopping sun', I am now providing what I believe to be a reliable source for other testimonies throughout history. The article in question notes that there are many stories also of a 'standing moon' in history, which would be appropriate considering only one side of the earth gets sunlight at a time. (http://www.geocentricity.com...) Initially, I had though there were two ways to go about refuting my arguments. One, in claiming the method I used was faulty. Two, in showing that at some point after the mass revelation in Jewish history, transmission was dependent on the word of an individual. I have only a few minutes to post, so I'll end here for now. Thanks to Pro for his rebuttals and I look forward to his response!