The God of the Jews exists, and Judaism, as explained by Orthdoxy, is the correct religion.

Thanks to Tower for providing the opportunity to discuss such an important issue. And I will be numbering my criticisms so that they correspond with his points. 1. Pro's first point is a classic argument from ignorance [1] that is often given the whimsical name of "God-of-the-Gaps" which specifically refers to the argument form of (among other things) "we don't know how X happens, therefore God did it". To illustrate this more clearly take Isaac Newton. Newton developed a brilliant theory of gravity that allowed him to predict planetary movement in our solar system yet it was not without its flaws. One major one is that Newtonian gravity was compatible with planetary movements going in *any* direction but empirical observation showed that this was not the case. Newton was at an absolute loss to explain how all these planets moved in such an ordered way and probably thought science would never have an answer - so he posited that God was the one who adjusted the planets so the moved in such an orderly fashion. After all, nothing else was conceivable, right? Unfortunately for Newton he didn't have that much knowledge of astronomy, which is understandable considering the time period, and didn't know about solar system formation and it was later found that how solar systems form explained the phenomenon perfectly. What does this have to do with Pro's argument you ask? Everything. I argue his reasoning is much like Newton's - "there is no other explanation as to the world came from, therefore God created the world." Notice what Pro is basically saying is we don't know how the universe began therefore God did it. I am sympathetic to that sentiment as a Christian and I believe that that basic argument can be turned into a good one but it is clear Pro's argument is obviously invalid. First, it's not even true that there aren't other explanations for where the world (I'm assuming it's meant universe) came from! There are numerous theories as to what has caused the big bang - everything from quantum fluctuations [2] to various brane theories. [3] So that part of the contention fails miserably. Second, and perhaps even more significantly, even granting his invalid argument it would not get him to a "God" that he can base the rest of his arguments on. At the very best we could get a being who is supernatural, powerful, intelligent, space less, timeless, and personal (if we were to grant the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, that is). But notice what this does NOT get you which is crucial to Pro's following points - a benevolent God. There is nothing we can deduce from solely being the creator of the universe that could lead us to believe that the creator of the universe is also benevolent - for all we know it could have been an amoral or evil "god" that created the universe! It's an astounding leap of logic to go from "creator of the universe" to "the God of Orthodox Judaism" in just one (invalid) argument. It would seem Pro's argument crumbles at it's very first contention! And what's worse is Pro bases all of his points on an argument to prove God's existence that doesn't even work....This rebuttal alone is enough to stop Pro's argument in it's tracks. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the above argument fails (which it doesn't, of course) and go on to the other points. 2. Why should we assume God is benevolent? Pro gave us no reason to suppose that there is a supreme being in the first place (which I agree would be benevolent). Besides that how does a perfect being, assuming Pro believes that God is perfect in every way, have "needs" anyway? Perfection implies that the being in question is not in need of anything as that would further imply a deficiency that God has. 3. What is even meant by "true" happiness and how is this relevantly different from other kinds of happiness? I know for a fact that I can give happiness and be given happiness. When I take my 6 year old niece it the park it gives me tremendous happiness ad I know that having her uncle hang out with her gives her happiness as well. That would seem to defeat this point unless Pro can provide a relevant distinction between my happiness and "true" happiness. 4. What does t even mean to have happiness that is "effective"? Effective to who? The person who is happy? 5. Not necessarily. For one, a benevolent God could have us imprinted us with a sense of how to earn this happiness thus negating the need for explicit instruction. 6. Say that thousands upon thousands of people have stated not only have aliens spoke to them but they have abducted them and used them as something akin to lab rats. I certainly can conceive that as a hoax, or more probably, that they sincerely believe that they have been abducted by aliens and tell the rest of humanity that. There need not be any lies involved if they do not know they are mistaken. This is roughly analogous to Pro's claim. It's quite possible thousands of people to sincerely believe God exists and has spoken to them when it did not really happen. I think many examples of people saying that God told them to kill X are plausibly in this arena. Adding more dubious accounts doesn't make it any less or more believable necessarily. I suppose Pro is relying on corroboration but personal testimony is notoriously unreliable. In fact, if I knew a person had performed genuine miracles I'd be much more inclined to accept their proposed system of happiness then thousands of people that could be mistaken. 7. Unless I'm very much mistaken Christianity also claims this as Christians believe in the same God that Jews do. 8. Why would God have to hold another comparable event? We've seen Pro's previous reason doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, God could have let everyone know by way of some incredibly great prophet who could perform miracles. ;) 9. I have no issues with this point because it does not really lead Pro anywhere. 10. This, as it stands, is a bare assertion. Surely, even excluding other religions HOW does orthodox Judaism supply the explanation that others lack? How does it distinguish self from other branches of Judaism that undoubtedly claim the same thing. And of course Orthodox adherents to Judaism consider their explanation valid - I am assuming they wouldn't be Orthodox adherents of Judaism if they didn't consider their explanation valid. Other branches of Judaism also presumably claim their explanations are valid as well. [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [2] http://www.infidels.org... [3] http://www.dailygalaxy.com...