The Christian god exists

Thank you, Jerry! DefinitionsFirst off, my opponent is seeking to modify the definitions provided in the first round. I clearly stated should any modifications be needed, this was to be handled before accepting. Additionally, the word “prove” is not part of the resolution or his quoted words. The Axiological Argument: This argument is not for a personal god. The Christian god is personal according to the Bible. This argument does not argue for the god of the Bible anymore than it argues for a god of Hinduism, Islam, or any other religion claiming a personal god. In the interest of discussion, I’ll point out that premise 1 is faulty. Moral values can be argued for sans a god. For instance, it could be argued that a moral conscience was selected for by an evolutionary process, and this would be supported by a rudimentary morality exhibited in many animals. Perhaps, Pro is not aware of instances where animals attempt to protect or resuscitate other injured, dead, or dying animals: For Pro to explain proto morality, he would need to argue that animals live in fear of a god (and explain why a god would arbitrarily supply values to some animals and not others). Clearly, god is not the best explanation for objective moral values. The Teleological argument: Again, this argument is not for a personal god. The Christian god is personal according to the Bible. This argument does not argue for the god of the Bible anymore than it argues for a god of Hinduism, Islam, or any other religion claiming a personal god. In the interest of discussion, I’ll point out that Pro’s argument for the ‘inconceivable’ odds against the universe we live in, i.e. “a life permitting universe”, is simply using backward logic. The same argument could be made for the particular driver’s license number Pro has. The odds of having that particular 9 digit number are inconceivable!! However, that assumes he was destined to have that particular number. That is a dubious assumption much like assuming life was destined to exist exactly as we know it or that the existence of life was guaranteed. The Cosmological argument: This argument fails just as the last two arguments have. This argument is not for a personal god. The Christian god is personal according to the Bible. This argument does not argue for the god of the Bible anymore than it argues for a god of Hinduism, Islam, or any other religion claiming a personal god. That being said, virtual particles make a fine example to the contrary to the first premise. They pop in and out of existence randomly (even in a vacuum) and we can detect no discernible cause. That alone is enough to make this argument tumble. Secondly, assuming the universe does have a cause this argument doesn’t explain why that cause must be a singular being as opposed to multiple beings, or a god as opposed to a force of nature. At best, assuming every premise is valid, it establishes a cause but what that cause is we cannot know. The Existence of Jesus: Out of the four arguments Pro provides, this is the only one with the potential to “show the Christian god exists”. I have no problem conceding a teacher named Jesus lived in the first century. However, Pro needs more than that to meet his burden. He needs to establish Jesus was a god. This he has not done. Pro’s sources leaves much to be desired. “Is-there-a-god.info” is run by a believer who admits “I have my own views, and these undoubtedly colour my choice of topics and the way they are presented”. ”Gotquestions.org” is not an objective source of information since the answers are generally provided anonymously and we have no way to determine if the people providing the answers are qualified in any way. The mission statement of ”Reasonablefaith.org” illustrates a Christian bias. "Reasonable Faith aims to provide in the public arena an intelligent, articulate, and uncompromising yet gracious Christian perspective on the most important issues concerning the truth of the Christian faith today”. Additionally, each of the links Pro provided in this argument went to a main page or to a page that did not support Pro's argument. The New Testament being a source of evidence for a claim in the NT is circular. Jesus as a real person is corroborated from outside the Bible (even though Pro hasn’t presented it), and this is why I acknowledge Jesus as a real person. The empty tomb, Jesus being resurrected, Jesus being witnessed post-death by 500 witnesses, etc. are claims specific to the NT. Pro will need to provide corroboration from 1st century extra-Biblical sources to back these claims. As such, Pro’s assertion “we have good evidence that Jesus was resurrected” is completely overstated.SummaryPro's first three arguments have no specific relevance to the Christian god. At best they argue for a theistic god. Jerry's final argument is unsubstantiated. On that, I will turn this back over to Pro.