The Christian God is the likeliest of all the gods from thoughout time.

I will first offer my rebuttals to Pro's arguments then add my own afterwards. 1. "As instigator, Con bears the burden of proof that there are just as many reason to believe in the Christian God as with the other gods." I must clear this up. The only BOP I bear is to show that there are many other gods that are more logical than the Christian one. I have to show no evidence of the Christian god or any other for that matter, unless it happens to support a certain argument. 2."What would make one a god unless they were better than we are?" This does not require perfection. Zeus is better than us for the fact he can throw lightning bolts and has other god-like powers such as raising the dead. Thor has superior strength, flight, and the ability to wield his hammer. (1) This makes them more than us, but still imperfect, as I have shown. 3. "However, there is nothing in the bible to show that god is imperfect." Yes, there is. In the bible, God declares himself a jealous and vengeful God. These are both petty human traits that could not possibly exist within a perfect being. 4." A being can only create something lesser than itself". I don't know where Pro got this idea, but it is simply not true. People create others equal or lesser to themselves all the time. It's how the human race progresses. If Pro's argument were true, then the human race would be in a constant state of regression. Every social, medical, ethical, and technological advancement we have made is a result of the current generation during the time of the advancement being better than the preceding one. 5."Con gave no reason to doubt God's perfection so it cannot be used as evidence against Him." Yes, it can. If this were a debate about God's existence in general, then Pro's argument would hold water. This, however, is a debate about the likelihood of His existence when compared to the other gods. Since the other gods lay no claims to perfection, this makes them more logical because we see imperfection all around us all the time. We have never truly proved all-encompassing perfection is even possible, so of course an imperfect god is more likely and more believable than a perfect one. 6. "Allah is not the same god as the Christian one... if a god claims not to be a trinity, then it is not the same god." It is widely accepted among Christians and Jews that they worship the same God, yet the Jews do not believe in the Holy Trinity. The fact that they are the same is evidenced by the same interactions with the same people, such as Moses, Noah, Abraham, etc. I could look up examples in the Qu'ran, but I'm not really worried about it because it is not a central part of my argument. 7."However, the bible speaks in complete unity from Genesis to Revelation". Again, this is simply not true. Each of the gospels offers a different account of the resurrection. In Matthew, they came upon a closed tomb and an angel descended from heaven with an earthquake. This angel removed the stone, sat on top of it, and told Mary's group about the resurrection. They never entered the tomb or even described what was inside. In Mark, there was an additional person, they came upon the tomb, asked about the door, looked and it was open. They entered and saw the angel sitting inside. No earthquake, do heavenly desention, completely different between the two, but in Luke... Even more people, no earthquake, no big desention, just an open tomb that they found empty. They had time to be confused about it before the angels approached. Two, this time, as if there weren't enough differences. Three books, three totally different accounts of the same event. Let's try for four out of four, shall we? In John, here we have an even different story than the rest. Up until now, the only thing that all the accounts had in common is the fact that Mary Magdalene, with a small group of people, approached the tomb at dawn. That, and the fact that after approaching the tomb an angel ( or two) appeared and told them of the resurrection. In John, however, Mary approaches alone, sees the open tomb, and freaks out, running to the disciples. They came back, inspected the empty tomb in great detail, and left. Mary stayed behind, alone, when the angels finally approached. Four books, four totally different accounts of what was supposedly the biggest event in Christian history. You'd think they would take care to get their stories straight. I cannot think of one common fact that they all share. I do have other examples of the bible being contradictory, but I think this is sufficient to disprove Pro's claim that the bible in written in perfect unity from beginning to end. 8. Pro has tried to discredit the other holy books by pointing out their contradictions to the bible, but you can't say the bible is more credible simply because it's the bible. That is circular logic. You have to provide evidence why your holy book is more credible. If contradicting the bible is a sign of falsehood, then the bible is just as false, because it contradicts itself just as much as the other books contradict it. I thought I would get to some of my arguments this round, but I am running low on time and don't have quite enough characters left to get through them. I guess they will have to wait until next time.