Biblical God exists.

Id like to summarize my replies to Enaidealukal from his statements listing 1-3 throughout Round 2. I hope if my rebuttal to these points hold value, then my original points shall speak for themselves. Enaidealukal says: 1) I believe the answer to this question is an obvious "yes"- that someone believes something, and is willing to die for it, does not necessarily imply that that belief is true. However this doesn't disprove, only indicates a logical margin of potential error. The potential error I've noted in round one under Criticism. But the underlying bases to conclude a serious review of the evidence has not been addressed. Explosion of Christian faith is just as mysterious as the eye witness accounts. Similar in my example of Steven, who claims he's the last male alive. We logically conclude his claim is creditable when mankind becomes extinct. Noted, this doesn't provide an absolute conclusion, but does provoke intellectual review, that Stevens claim is very likely - instead of very unlikely. A point which deserves review by debaters. Enaidealukal says: 2) Christianity enjoyed some historical circumstances that proved crucial in the spread of its popularity; its adoption by the Roman Empire, with all of its influence and resources, for one. The fact that Christianity piggy-backed on and associated itself with an existing religion (Judaism) rather than starting from scratch. Christian faith began with persecution, and by these conditions the faith spread. It appears your statement indicates Roman sheltered and assisted the faith for it's growth, when historical evidence disputes your claim. For a long time early Christians were alienated from Roman, Greek and Hebrew ideologies and society. The message of the faith was interpreted as; Cannibals, incest, and attempting to drown new converts to the faith as initiation. All these detestable to Jews and Romans. Eating the flesh and blood of Jesus; referring to those in the faith as brothers and sister(imply incest in social norm); and baptism for new converts. Greeks viewed followers as illogical fools, such as Paul. The doctrine of Jesus a man rising from the dead as sign of deity was foolishness to Greeks. The rejected doctrine that God could become man and die, was similar rejected by Islamic doctrine to follow. Rome used religion for power and control. To disobey Roman gods, or teach others not to bow was viewed as treason. Execution by Rome wasn't a quick death, and every Roman citizen knew this. Pliny the younger said "Disgusting fanatical superstition." http://www.tyrannus.com... Under Nero Christians were blamed for the great fire, which showed all Romans what ultimate end is waiting for anyone deciding to convert. Though Romans pitied them, it's obvious they'd pause to consider converting in future. http://www.unrv.com... In conclusion, this indicates Christian growth without the assistance of Roman protection. Consequently, the rapid growth under persecution ultimately was used to unity Roman because of it's influence. You comment falls to 'Chicken and egg' scenario. You cannot unify Rome by Christianity unless it's wide spread. And you cannot claim it became wide spread because it was used to unify Rome. Enaidealukal says: 3) If we had eyewitness reports of some event X this would indeed constitute evidence that X had occurred -- Unfortunately, we're not sure we have any eyewitness reports at all, and if we do, we have reasons to doubt their credibility. Historical accuracy. Historical time-line for all writings fall less then 70AD, Jesus died and rose 30AD. Matthew and Mark can be dated early as 50AD, and Luke before 62AD. John between 70-90AD which is mentioned and taken into consideration. Letters to Greek, Roman, Asia minor and Middle East speak about daily life and events. The Jewish temple was destroyed in 70AD, so it would be mentioned if writings were more then 70AD. However dead men cannot write which is our case for almost all the the disciples. As listed in round one, only 3 died after 70AD adding further time-line accuracy. A quick read of this link will explain the factual content of my statements. http://www.everystudent.com... "we find agreement 95% of the time. And the 5% differences are minor spelling variances and sentence structure that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence." Since no deviation is found within gospel records, and how close they're written to the resurrection. Eye witnesses would still be alive while letters and reports are in circulation. Generational knowledge and accounts would stand or fall due the writings close proximity to the events. Many converts and skeptics would have heard rumors of his miracles, death and resurrection, adding to falsifiable witness to the credibility to the faith. Such as Saul who hunted Christians, then reports to see Christ. Luke was highly accurate for historical evidence, regarded by Ramsay's as: I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favour of the conclusion [the historical reliability of Luke] which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it. Ramsay's conclusion was that: Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians... Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness. http://www.facingthechallenge.org... Critical review A liberal critic reviewed Professor Ramsay’s book, and concluded his discussion with this barb: “If Luke is a great historian, what would the author of this book [Ramsay] make of Luke 2:1-3?” Ramsay mused, “Nothing more was needed. This brief question was sufficient” (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, p. 223). For many years, Luke 2:1-7 had been perceived as containing more error per square inch than almost any other section in the New Testament. Thanks to the work of Sir William Ramsay, those objections have vanished – every one of them. Continues for seven main points which have been addressed. https://www.christiancourier.com... Historical accuracy - conclusion. It's justified to question historical evidence within fairy tales, however evidence becomes intensified when critical review fails. When it's quoted by Ramsay's: "...this author [Luke] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians... Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness." As mentioned - 70AD ultimately limits all writings within the same generation as all eye witnesses being alive and present while gospel's were circulating. When compared to writers such as Homer, the biblical accuracy and credibility stands alone. When the biblical foundation is compared to Koran, the historical evidence and foundation for reference is not comparable. This is due to Koran having no historical background to question, due all documents burnt by the author of the first Koran. This link is Islamic. http://www.answering-christianity.com... We can try to explain these appearances away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable. http://www.faithfacts.org...