The Christian god exists

"Pro"s definition of "personal god" leaves him falling well short of the god proclaimed in the Bible." Not at all. I have established that God is personal. You are asking for something more than this. Now, you also want me to show that he has relationships with people. "A rational, self-conscious, volitional being and a being which is available for a personal relationship with any human (as Jesus is claimed to be) or who has been revealed to mankind are not synonymous." You asked me to argue for a personal God and I did. In this last round for you are asking me to show you that this God has relationships with people. I will do my best to address this later on in this round. "Additionally, he explicitly states the being he argues for might not "have personal contact with the governed or to be known by name" I said that a lawgiver doesn't necessarily have to have relationships with the people he creates. But the creator of the objective moral code isn't just a lawgiver, he has to be 100% moral as I have already showed my opponent in previous rounds. So a moral God would have to be involved with his creation and to not just let them suffer. "As I stated last round, "if Pro were to prove a god by these argument we would not know which god he had proved". This should be viewed as a concession by Pro on this point." Uh no. That was something you said. My arguments show a personal God and they show that he is moral. "Pro is misrepresenting my argument by claiming I am advocating a subjective morality. Evolution provides the necessary framework for determining what is good." I understand what you believe. But believing that evolution provides us with the means to decide what is good is subjective whether you realize it or not. I have gone into great detail already with this and my opponent still ignores everything I said on the matter. He still hasn't answered the four questions I asked him. "Slavery and rape-marriage is a degradation of humanity (Pro conceded the "son stoning" with no argumentation of his own, and his source was literally defending against my interpretation with "Yes, but". Not to mention, I already attacked this source for anonymity in rnd2)" My opponent has literally ignored what I said about rape and about slavery. Hopefully the voters will realize that my opponent just keeps asserting things and never actually refutes any points I make. I never conceded anything about son stoning. But because I take a lot of time addressing every point my opponent makes, I didn't have enough characters to address the matter. My source was fine, my opponent just doesn't trust anything a Christian says. The verse from Exodus my opponent mentions was for all slaves including non-Israelites. My opponent just didn't read the Bible. In other words, all slaves were considered members of the family and etc...For the record, exodus 21 mentions a restriction on slavery. God didn't say that slaves could be beaten, but that if they did beat their slaves...they would be punished. And my opponent still has said nothing about the fact that God free thousands of slaves in the book of exodus. "These experiments support a natural morality built on characteristics derived from an objective source (our shared evolutionary heritage)." I found those experiments very confusing. I don't see how that proved that animals were moral/immoral. Like I already said, my opponent seems to see traits in animals that aren't really there. For example, (https://www.google.com...) this article shows an example of a killer monkey. I can guarantee no one yelled at the monkey for being immoral. It is completely illogical for people to see morality in animals when they so clearly operate on instinct. Humans are different. "To establish this I could ask," what level of complexity demands a designer and how was this determined?" That wasn't even the entire argument. This is another example of a case where my opponent ignores my main point. Life feels rigged in our favor as I established in round one. My opponent never argued against this and therefore my point remains valid. "If the argument is not specifically arguing for the deity of the Bible, then it does nothing to build up Pro"s case." The argument argues for a personal, timeless, all powerful, moral, creative being. The God of the Bible is all of those things so I don't know why my opponent keeps saying that this argument doesn't argue for the God of the Bible. "The truth is we don"t know what causes virtual particles. We only know that they exist." You were trying to use virtual particles as something that happened without a cause. This would have refuted my statement about everything existing has a cause. Now my opponent says that we don't know what caused these particles which is basically a concession (don't know if it happened on purpose) that the particles do have a cause. Therefore the first premise of my cosmological argument still remains valid. "So to say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is not something we can claim with certainty." Things do not come from nothing. It is illogical to say that things can come from nowhere. So I have no idea why my opponent would say something like this. Until my opponent can name something that begins to exist and doesn't have a cause...then my statement remains valid yet again. "The claim of the resurrection being submitted as evidence of the resurrection is circular." My opponent has stated this many times but has never proved it. A circular argument is one that assumes what it is tying to prove. My opponent never states why the Bible commits this fallacy. For example, the gospel writer John didn't say that Jesus was God because he thinks he is God. But John argues (21 Chapters) that because Jesus did miracles (which he witnessed), because Jesus died and rose again (which was unexpected), and etc...that Jesus must be fully God. Nothing about this is circular. No one ever claimed the resurrection as evidence of the resurrection. My evidence of the resurrection is that many people in the time period wrote about the resurrection taking place and my opponent has provided no reason to discredit what they say. "Assuming John is an eye-witness account (assumed for the sake of the argument), there are no other eye witness accounts to corroborate it within the Bible." We don't have to assume anything. Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus and they were there when Jesus was murdered. They were eyewitnesses. "So, the Bible cannot provide evidence for the resurrection because it is the claim of the resurrection." No. The Bible is the evidence for the claim that the Resurrection happened. We have two eyewitness accounts by the disciples of Jesus and Mark/Luke were surrounded by the people that were there at his death. They recorded what happened and my opponent has provided no reason to ignore what they said. "In summary, there has been no evidence submitted for the resurrection, only claims of it, and without evidence Pro's case has no teeth and his preferred advocate (WLC) without objectivity has no credibility." I have given plenty of evidence for the Resurrection. I talked about the conversions of Jesus' brothers, I talked about the empty tomb, and mentioned Biblical evidence. My opponent has not refuted any on these things. William Lane Craig is a Christian, but that doesn't mean he can't analyze evidence like the rest of us. The link I provided showed that the resurrection was the best explanation for the empty tomb. And since my opponent has not showed me another explanation...it seems that my opponent concedes that the resurrection is the best explanation. "The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels " Matthew the tax collector, Mark the attendant of Peter, Luke the attendant of Paul, and John the son of Zebedee " are doubted among the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars. However, the public is often not familiar with the complex reasons and methodology that scholars use to reach definitive and well-supported consensuses about critical issues, such as assessing the authorial traditions for ancient texts. [3]" Matthew was a disciple of Jesus and was present at his execution, Mark knew someone that was there, Luke knew people that were there (Peter), and John was present at his death. Your quote does nothing to show that majority of Bible scholars believe that they were not eyewitness accounts. You merely showed that a few atheist Bible scholars do not believe this is the case. "They are passionate about Jesus, and they are more likely to embellish the events." How do you embellish the resurrection of someone? You can't fake something like this. Remember Jesus' brothers? They were not Christians until after Jesus was resurrected. What would it take for my opponent to believe that his brother was God? So it wasn't just his disciples that spoke about him this way, it was people who weren't his apostles (Luke/Mark) and his own family members who were also there at the execution. Conclusion: a. My first three arguments establish that he is a personal God, and my opponent could not refute these arguments. b. My last argument was supported by the Bible and a link that explained that the resurrection was the best explanation for the empty tomb. My opponent in response ignored everything I said and claimed that the Bible was circular and that my source being written by a Christian wouldn't be accepted by him. Since my opponent pretty much ignored everything I wrote on evolution/Jesus, he should not win the debate. PS: Also, he didn't even make a case. He just tried to refute what I wrote.