The Judeo/Christian god most likely exists

Thanks Pro. On to the last round. No Proof The claim of a favorite color is a personal, subjective occurrence. We can prove that by asking you what your favorite color is, or we could set up a series of tests in which you might choose random colored objects and then pick from the data which color you picked the most. The claims of Christians do not correlate to a personal subjective experience. The claims are at least partly rooted in purely objective things, ie: all of creation. If you claim god exists without scientific detection, which is simply a word-game for saying god has no evidence, then how can you say he exists? I can play that game too. I think aliens created us to have something fun to watch on tv. The aliens are far too evolved for us, they created our reality specifically so we can’t detect them, therefore they exist and I believe in them. It doesn't make it plausible. There are lots of Atheists who know little about science and are perfectly happy not ‘trusting in science’. We don’t claim that our ideas and works are inspired by a celestial daddy. We correct them. Problem of Evil Trusting those you love has led many a person into an abuse relationship – something I know a bit about, having worked with battered woman, many of whom still claim they love the men who previously whooped them with a coat hanger. Love, while a wonderful thing, can be quite blinding when it is misplaced. Pro tries to defend the omniscience paradox with a bit of a twisty argument. It has little to do with the finality of this argument. Even if we use that tautology, it still lands us in a place neither one of us could properly defend. It’s a bit like the Grandfather paradox; if you went back in time and killed your Grandfather, you would cease to exist, and therefore it would be impossible to kill your Grandfather. Thusly, if you got to the pearly gates and Saint Peter said, “Sorry, but it says here you’re going to hell” and you go to hell, even if you went back in time you would, by the nature of your actions, still have to end up in hell, and it would seem that you were destined by said actions to end up in hell. God creates us express for hell on occasion, it would seem, just as he created all those Australian aborigines, or those Native Americans express for hell, having not heard of Jesus until the 1700’s. - Evolution. No mention of it in the bible – makes the case for creation a bit crooked - Illiterate desert tribesman as oppose to us, or at the least, the Chinese, who kept incredibly detailed histories and were well-versed in literature, even at that time. - God loves us: explain bone cancer, disasters, centuries of religious and ethnic cleansing - There is no contradiction. The bible claims there were miracles. If I showed them an iPhone they would think it magical. There are no true miracles, and the miracles that are claimed are deception. - 2nd Thessalonians 1:8, “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Jeffery Dahmer, a man who boiled the severed head of a 14 year old boy (after smashing his body to pieces with a sledgehammer) in industrial detergent and proceeded to use the skull for sexual purposes. I can’t find his crimes so easy to dismiss, I’m afraid. I wonder if god created Dahmer with the socio/psychopathy, or if that was just the result of ‘a sinful, fallen world’, whatever that means. Not Unique/Divine I apologize, I may have misread your point. My mistake. That said, the point still stands as preposterous. Jesus said “hate” and meant “hate”. We can bounce around it forever. Why would the perfect vessel of god mislead you by using overdramatic language? The bible never makes it clear that the laws of Leviticus are to be thrown out. In fact, Jesus says in Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." It takes some twisting for that to mean throw out the old laws, which I trust Pro will try and do in the next round. Pro tiptoes, but makes it clear that the Israelites were ignorant to modern ideals and standards. Why then do you claim it is the word of god? Why would you continue to try and base morals on Iron Age tribes? Pro makes another stretch by saying that the OT only inflicts the maximum punishment. Nowhere does it say anything like that. Pro never explained the Genesis account of firmament, and her semantics and wiggling don’t convince. Neither does her explanation of the differing genealogies. The traditional canon of the NT may have thousands of copies each with varying ranges of change, but the source of these versions must be examined, so instead of throwing around big numbers, why don’t you analyze a historical timeline of translation. The NT includes the works of men who never saw Jesus, that is, because none of them probably did, most of it being pure fiction, and in the case of the gospel of Luke, certainly didn’t, having been written some sixty to seventy years after his supposed death. Luke was revised dramatically into the 2nd century. (https://books.google.com.au... page 250-253). It is assumed that Luke was based on much of the gospel of Mark, the earliest of the gospels, which was probably written by an unknown author from a collection of stories and traditions, not eyewitnesses. (https://books.google.ca... page 156) The gate of needle-eye is a fallacy and there exists no historical account of it, just modern claims based on apparently, a mistranslation. Cosmological Eternal things must be found to exist and must be found to be enteral before we can assume they are eternal. Just because you or a book says doesn’t make it so. Krauss is based in evidence, and whatever definition of nothing you want to use, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change evidence. Moral If you want to dead-end that quote, take the entire story of Noah, in which the whole earth is flooded and almost all of humanity and animal-kind alike are drowned. That’s not really forgiveness and understanding, is it? Take exodus 12:29, in which god systematically kills every Egyptian first-born as punishment for Pharaoh’s stubbornness. Take the OT genocides (Joshua 6:20-21, Deut. 2:32-35, 3:3-7, etc.) or the appalling story in Numbers 31:7-18 in which god commands every Midianite to be slaughtered except the young virgins, whose fate is certainly a bit dubious. I deeply doubt Dawkins would ever use a term like “lucky chance”. It’s systematic evolution. Have you read Lord of the Flies? If it is a matter of survival we can do brutal things. We still have a long ways to go. I’m glad to see you mostly agree with the Hitchens point – aside from the fact you won’t find secular humanists cutting the clitoris or foreskin off a baby. Resurrection Little men in radios = absolutely ridiculous. Out of the question. Big man in the sky = completely logical. So, by your own logic: You maintain that it is more logical that there are explained, reasonable, scientific components that make a radio work. But, at the same time, you maintain that when we apply the very same logical tautology to matters of cosmology, that the big man in the sky makes the radio run, so to speak. If you could present to me overwhelming evidence, or really, any good evidence at all, that a resurrection took place, I would change my mind. Sure, it would take spectacular evidence for such a spectacular claim, but I would change my mind if such evidence arose. It does not presuppose the existence of a god either way. You have not demonstrated that god exists, much less that the god that might exist is the one described in the bible. I rest my case.