A god exists, as defined by the PRO side.

I don't take personal testimony as reliable evidence, but i do rely on personal experience. Science cannot refute experience because it's not confined to a lab and it doesn't deal with the supernatural (2). Here is my logical approach to God: 1. Evidence can only lead us to discover the physical aspects of reality, but not the spiritual 2. Because of this, we cannot achieve absolute truth, we need other methods to be objective 3. You cannot distinguish between reality and illusion if you restrict yourself to science 4. We as humans rely on several things to know: the mind, and experience 5. Therefore, it is only fair to rely on a divine experience to verify God and the spiritual realm "As I have mentioned earlier: When using evidence, please provide sources, lest the claim is absolutely trivial." On the reliability of the Bible, lets begin with transmission. Scholar F.F Bruce said this about the Masoretes (group of Jews who transmitted the O.T) "[The Masoretes wrote] with the greatest imaginable reverence, and devised a complicated system of safeguards against scribal slips. They counted, for example, the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book; they pointed out the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the middle letter of the whole Hebrew Bible, and made even more detailed calculations than these." (2) The Dead Sea Scrolls (one of the oldest manuscripts) were discovered and compared to the Masoretic text. Only 3 spelling changes were found, none affecting the entire message (3). The body of manuscripts of the O.T create a self-correcting system of the errors in the O.T, creating essentially a perfect O.T (4). As for the new testament, only minor errors were made in transmission none affecting doctrine (5). Plus, it's been shown that the New Testament is not required as the church fathers quoted from it so much, so even if we didn't have it, the church fathers would technically be our "new testament." "if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, [the patristic quotations] would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament." (6). Archaeological reliability of the Bible: "On the whole " archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine. Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics." "" Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology, Yale University (7) "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contraverted a biblical reference", whereas on the other "Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." (8). Accuracy of prophecy: According to Peter W. Stoner's book "Science speaks", he uses probability and science to prove that Biblical prophecy is in fact very accurate (9). In the book "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh McDowell (pg. 167), his work is verified to be reliable by the American Scientific Affiliation. Various experts have studied the universe and from the original languages, the simple poetry of the Bible has consistently proven itself to align with highly advanced scientific discoveries (10). Because of time purposes, i will only present and refute the logical counter-arguments on God's existence. 1. The problem of evil - God is all loving, all knowing, all powerful If God is all good, he would want to stop evil If God is all powerful, he can stop evil If God is all knowing, he knows how to do it Evil exists Terefore, he cannot be all three at once and if he isn't all three, he cannot exist the problem with this argument is that it commits the fallacy of false dilemma. It only gives two options, it never gives any other explanation.there could be many reasons why God allows evil to happen. on top of that, God's morality has nothing to do with his existence. In the case of job (Job 40) , he questions him to see if he knows about his morality. No where is his existence questioned. As for the impossible rock, I expose its weakness with the following : 1. God is all powerful 2. Because he is all powerful, he cannot deny that he is (2 Tim. 2:13) 3. Therefore he cannot create something that can defeat himself The problem with this argument is that it is logically impossible for anyone to harmonize it. If God is powerful enough to cause himself to not be powerful, he's not God. If he's not, he's still not God, so this argument is futile. Sources: 1. http://undsci.berkeley.edu... 2. F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (London: Pickering 3. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant? (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p. 45-46. 4. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, 14. 5. Geisler and Nix, 475. 6. Metzger, 86. 7. Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones? (New York: Meridian Books, 1956), p.1. 8. Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Cudahy, 1959), p.31. 9. http://sciencespeaks.dstoner.net... 10. http://www.creationmoments.com...