The God of the Bible exists

CON: - Burden of Proof - Testing for god - World must have a creator - How do you know god isn't real? 1. Refute the hosts of the Atheist Experience videos. ----- Aah. Nothing better than Matt Dillahunty, a man made famous for dodging in debate, hence the term "The Dillahunty Dodge". http://www.silverweapon.com... And interesting that Con needs an atheist radio show to debate for him... Nevertheless, the points in the video were rather simple to rebuttal, and some of them weren't points I even need to rebuttal in a "God exists" debate. ----- BURDEN OF PROOF Very good. In Round 4 of my debate with this same opponent, I provided a lengthy rebuttal of which Con then chose to forfeit the round with no rebuttal because he had none. debate.org/debates/Why-cant-christians-take-their-god-at-his-word-Well-only-whenit-suits-them-as-is-the-christian-way/1/ The point of Round 4 was that if the Bible were correct, its end times claims should come true. I demonstrated that they have. Even better still, the Bible's claims in Isaiah that Damascus, Syria will be reduced to rubble in the end times is happening in real time as we speak. "The burden concerning Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from resembling a city, and it shall become a heap of ruins." (ISAIAH 17:1) http://biblehub.com... Pictures of Damascus today- 1) https://static01.nyt.com... 2) http://m.beforeitsnews.com... 3) http://www.endtimesprophecywatch.com... In Round 4 of the other debate, the premise was made from 3 distinct claims of a point in the "end times". 1)The gospel spreads to every nation. It even tells you specifically that this (the gospel spreading to every nation) is the key sign that the end is upon us. 2)It then makes a paradoxial claim, stating there will be a "falling away" from the Christian faith and an open rebellion against it. 3)It makes another paradoxial claim, describing another future religious system (The beast system) that begins spreading across the Earth, even specifically rejecting the notion that "Jesus is the son of God", beheading Christians and imprisoning them in mass, being antisemitic, bowing to an image, etc. If there are 100 descriptions of this future religious system, Islam matches it to a "T". And if Con wants to say it's just a big coincidence, it really isn't. Islam itself claims that it (Islam) is in Biblical prophecy. If you ask a Muslim where, they will point to the book of Revelation, then point to "The beast from the sea", otherwise known to Christians as the kingdom and the religious system of the Antichrist. But rather than call this legendary figure "The Antichrist", Muslims call him "The Mahdi", meaning they see him as their Islamic messiah. This is explained in greater detail in Round 4 of the other debate I had with Con. debate.org/debates/Why-cant-christians-take-their-god-at-his-word-Well-only-whenit-suits-them-as-is-the-christian-way/1/ ----- TESTING FOR GOD 1)Prophecy is an easy testing for God. If the Bible makes paradoxial claims (and it does), and then those claims manifest into reality, it is logical to then come to the conclusion that the prophets have some inside knowledge from the god they claim. 2)The findings of Physicist James Gates would be a naturalistic proof of intelligent design to go hand in hand with the prophecy claim in point 1. (James Gates Video) https://youtu.be... ----- WORLD MUST HAVE A CREATOR I don't argue that a god is necessary for our world, universe, or reality to exist, so it's moot. I argue that there is proof that there is a god. As the woman in Con's second video stated, if reality matches the claim, then it is rational to accept the claim as true or very likely true. I refer you back to the points made in the "Burden of Proof" section in this debate. Her point was that if she says she has a cup in her hand, and you see one in her hand, she probably really does have a cup in her hand. I showed you the cup in my hand at the beginning of the debate in the "Burden of Proof" section. ----- HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD ISN'T REAL- 1)This is a question for an atheist, not me. 2)Whether one can prove a negative or not isn't an argument I have made, nor does the conceptualization challenge my above premise in the "Burden of Proof" section at the beginning of this debate. ----- CON SAYS: "no god of the bible would ---never--- use text to as a form of communication" A complete assumption and conjecture based on nothing. Objectively prove the god of the Bible would never use text, a book, words, the Internet, paper, email, etc. Then show how that would prove God does not exist. ----- CON SAYS: "the worst form of communication to begin with." An opinion. The next Joe Blow could claim it's the best form. Nevertheless, communication choice has nothing to do with one's existence. ----- CON SAYS: "To prove it, NOBODY, not one person, no one, has ---ever--- been able to prove YOUR god's existence according to the bible." I did at the beginning of this debate, and in my other debate with Con in Round 4. Con gave no rebuttal of any kind in Round 4 of that debate. He forfeited the round. debate.org/debates/Why-cant-christians-take-their-god-at-his-word-Well-only-whenit-suits-them-as-is-the-christian-way/1/ ----- CON SAYS: "Where oh where and how do you get your biblical and godly instructions from that you, nor anyone follows, so you are NOT a christian, nor can you or anyone ---ever--- be."" An ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the existence of God. But if Con wants reasoning in regards to his attack, he should study Biblical terms like "saved by grace", "He will not deny Himself", and "you are saved by faith and faith alone." A simple Google search should yield plenty of good results.