The christian god exists and rules over the universe.

Thanks for responding so quickly. Just wanted to say that your original argument seemed to address all religions and not just the Christian God. That said, my arguments are for the Christian God. You said that in round three, "Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case. " So I will not not yet defend the arguments I gave. I will instead rebut your opening argument you gave in round two. I will eventually defend my arguments in round four just like you asked me to do in round one. 1. You stated in part one of your opening argument that "we must not come up with an instinctual response and say oh, a greater power must have done it. " Just wanted to point out two errors with your part one argument. One problem being that you asserted that people instinctively decide to believe that God created everything. You have provided no evidence that people instinctively believe in God and you have not even given a reason to think that this would be a problem if true. You say that "no matter how much you believe that it does not make it true. " But why is it a problem that people believe in God? You also seem to misunderstand why people believe in God. People have faith in God that is based on evidence (as provided in round two). People do not just randomly have faith in God because of some instinct. The main problem with your part one argument is that it does not even attempt to disprove that God exists and is ruler over the universe. 2. You stated that prayer does not work in your opening argument. My response is that it does of course work. You can ask the millions of people that are Christians. We will each give you an example in which God answered one of our prayers. The fact the you (an unbeliever in God) has not seen prayer work is simply because you refuse to believe what Christians tell you. If I were you, I would go to a church and hear what Christians have to say. Do not just claim something does not happen just because you haven't experienced something as awesome as prayer. The main problem with this argument is that your doubts about prayer have nothing to do with disproving that God exists and is ruler of the universe. Not believing that something does not exist (prayer/God) is not the same as disproving the thing exists. 3. It was also stated in my opponents opening argument that "No one encodes DNA, instead it was encoded by a process of natural selection acting upon random mutations. " It should be noted that my opponent has not disproven anything but has merely asserted his own beliefs. The link he gave as evidence of his belief doesn't even support what he said. The link talked about some atomic number (117) which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. As for the formation of DNA, lets see what previous atheist Antony Flew had to say on the matter. He stated that "I now believe there is a God. .. I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. " Your belief in evolution is a theory and there is no evidence that supports macroevolution. 4. Then my opponent goes on to explain his belief that "Christianity and many other religions have derived from pagan gods. " Two main problems arise with his argument. One being that he has given no evidence to support his claim that Christianity has derived from a pagan god. He has just asserted this and has expected the readers to believe him. He also has not explained why (if true) this disproves the existence of God. Another problem is that the link he gave again spoke of the atomic number (117) and did not address anything he/I was saying. 5. Then my opponent goes on to state that religion is harmful for society. Not only does his argument not address the existence of God, but he has given no evidence to back up his claim. The link he gave (. http://www.catholic.com...) to show the statistics he provided was a catholic website that supported God and defended him. The link had nothing to do with the statistics he came up with. In other words, my opponent has not proven that religion is harmful to society but he hasn't even provided a explanation as of to why this disproves the existence of God. And then my opponent provides another random link (. http://a-a-ah.ru...) that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why does he keep providing faulty links? 6. Lastly, my opponent attacks the Bible and claims that it contains "numerous pieces of hypocrisy. " But not only does his argument have nothing to do with disproving the existence of God, but it also misinterprets the Bible. The commandment about killing does not state that people shouldn't kill. It states that people should not murder (. https://www.biblegateway.com...). There is a difference between murder and killing. And again, even if the Bible were full of pieces of hypocrisy (which it isn't), what does this have to do with disproving the existence of God?