The God of the Bible Exist

In any court of law, Eyewitness accounts are allowed and valid. "I don't know how this is a point for your case" " you don"t understand? You stated in your opening argument: "Sticking to the Bible, Eye witness statements are not enough evidence for the existence of God. " Your argument says that eyewitness evidence from the Bible is not enough, Which is why I addresses the reasonableness of the evidence. I also pointed out that whether it is 2000 years ago or in our day, Witness testimony has always been accepted as evidence (regardless of the available technology - which is another point you seem to be confused over). In this case, The eyewitness accounts from the Bible is ENOUGH evidence to satisfy legal requirements that a person named Jesus Christ did exist who is God. You said that God has no evidence, Did you ask for evidence to the contrary? No you did not, Instead you said: "Sticking to the Bible". Since you want evidence, I will give it at the end, But don"t build strawman arguments where I was supposed to supply evidence when you did not ask for it. The debate states: Should you wish to accept it will be up to Con to provide reasons why the God of the Bible do not exist. It does not state anywhere that Pro is obliged to provide evidence for the existence of God. However, Con is free to ask for such evidence but it is not a burden Pro has to address as part of the debate. "The problem here is we cannot verify if those people who wrote the Bible were telling the truth because they are all dead and if you want to say well information has been passed on through many generations. " Do you realize this is therefore also true of Darwin, The fossil record, Evolutionary theories, History, Science and just about anything else you want to quote from someone who already died? Mentioning hearsay etc. Does not automatically disprove what I said. I challenge you to read a book called: An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf, LL. D. The book is available at project Gutenberg. Simon Greenleaf wrote the handbook on what is acceptable evidence in a court of law, And if I recall it correctly, He was not always a Christian. His book has not been debunked and proves that the Gospels, As evidence presented in a court of law, Is valid and reliable. You have only shown 3 ways in which you obviously do not understand eyewitness testimony and that you have not proved in any way that you claim, "Eye witness statements are not enough evidence for the existence of God", Is true beyond a reasonable doubt. You accuse me of not providing evidence but fail to supply it yourself in your first round. I have provided reasons why eyewitness testimonies from the Bible are valid based on the rationality and reliability of the sources. I could use other examples from science etc. As well to disprove your claim. You realize that the scientific method is based on observation which relies on the testimony of the observer right? Guess what the observer becomes, The observer becomes an eyewitness that testifies. Eyewitness testimonies is considered valid evidence in various fields, Except when it contradicts what you want to believe, It seems. The law has the power to establish legal status, Right to life, Existence etc. Over which science has no authority. "Note I used my sources to provide the knowledge required yet you provided claim without stating an outside source supporting your claim". You did not provide any source for argument 1. In argument 2 you quoted from the Bible which you said you would stick by. If the Bible is your primary source (primary because you did not quote any other sources) then you did not provide any outside sources in argument 2 as well. You are being dishonest here, Or like some would say, Just plain lying. "Let me also remind the audience the law is not put in place to prove that God exists or not". No, It is not and I never claimed it does. I used the law because that is the one area in every society where eyewitness accounts are valid and rules were formulated to establish validity, And again, It contradicts your assertion that eyewitness are "not enough evidence". This should be enough to show you missed your own point and mine. I am not going to address the other nonsense you wrote below about the same subject. "It is science if God is observable in our natural world". You are very confused about what science is and what it is not. The inner working of black holes, Dark matter and even the Big bang has never been observed but is still regarded as science. The inability to observe something therefore does not automatically disqualifies it as unscientific. The second point here is that science cannot falsify someone"s existence. Science fails because you cannot repeat the experiment because a person dies once and that"s basically it. History can also not be falsified by science. Science can support historical claims but cannot prove or disprove it. The rules for historical evidence is not the same as scientific rules. You are obviously confused. In short, Science has limitations and cannot explain everything. You state: "If we look at the breakdown there are more atheists (17%) than Catholics (10%) and mainline protestants (16%). " Hold on a second - So basically 10% of Catholics who believe in God and 16% of Protestants who believe in God = 26% which is 9% more than atheist who does not believe in God? How is it possible that you can make mistakes like that and still exist? Argument 2 - Rebuttal "Wow. God can do no wrong but divinely inspired books that in your words "contains mistakes" is not wrong? How much belief do you need in that? " Where you actually reading what I wrote? "Where is your evidence for your side being more true than mine? " Where is my evidence? The fact that he addressed the letter to believers and says "you" over and over should be enough evidence for anyone who can read. "Quote your source or I am just going to say you are filling in the gaps that the Bible left out or you are believing what people are adding the in the Bible. " You quoted 1 Cor 10:13, Why don"t you try reading the next few verses and perhaps you will not ask a silly question like this again. It is clear that you only pick verses to prove what you want to believe without bothering to understand the context, If you were not, Then you would have noticed the next verse speaks about idols. "I found this hardly giving points to his/her side instead Pro is playing semantics. " Semantics? I"m not the one who can"t distinguish between the meaning of humanity and "common to man" and then try to sell a lot of excuses to the "audience" in order to hide my mistakes. Your point only stands if the verse you quoted actually said what you claimed it said. Read it again, It does not say what you claim. "Why didn't God stop humans from being retarded in order for all of humanity to be tested? " The short answer here is that it is because sin entered the world. Instead of going into a long discussion, I will ask you this simple question that shows your faulty logic: If God does not exist why are retarded people still born today? "We don't have free will". I think this topic is worth a debate on its own. Reasons to believe: The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas says that they believed because God foretold He would do something and it came to pass like He said. I will give two examples. 1. In the Book of Job it is said that there are springs at the bottom of the deep oceans. In the 1970s man developed the technology to actually go down that deep and guess what they found? They found springs coming out from the earth at the bottom of the deep ocean. No man could have known it during Job"s day and the only way someone could have known that is if they had supernatural abilities due to lack of modern technology. 2. Jesus Christ said that the Temple would be destroyed and the reason is because the period of God"s grace was to start. So in other words, God planned to do away with the Temple, It was not some coincidence. In 70AD, The Temple was destroyed, Just like Jesus said. It was destroyed by the Romans who got angry at Jewish (not Christian) rebels who opposed their rule. This was not due to a conspiracy by Christians and involved nations. You need some extraordinary abilities to direct the actions of nations. You do not prove your argument by getting the context wrong (misquoting), Or by faulty statistics (17% is more that 16% and 10% combined? ), Or by constructing strawman arguments. Please read the debate proposals before making claims that are not part of the Debate"s resolution.