Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

Sorry it took me so long to respond.Right, faith is required. As I explained previously, any evidence I've come across points towards a creator and starting with that assumption the Christian God makes the most sense."The christian God makes the most sense" What is your justification for this statement? Makes the most sense to whom? You maybe. Perhaps it might make the most sense to a christian who has been socialized within the Christian Religion and has had limited exposure to other religions. Outside of that, the Christian God makes no more or less sense than any other proposed deity.If you had absolute proof you would be removing the faith aspectAny evidence, would remove the faith aspect, not just absolute proof. Thus you cannot claim to have both faith and evidence. You want to have it both ways, and you can't have it both ways. Do not pretend to have evidence for a faith proposition, you are only deluding yourself.I never said the argument proved the existence of the Christian God, merely that it is a powerful argument for a creator.No it's not. It's not even a mediocre argument. It's a tautology that simply states "If it's caused then it has a cause" and you just assume the cause is God without proper justification.You just told me there are no absolute truths. I'm merely pointing out that is a logically fallacious argument to make.Only if we take "there are no absolute truths" as itself an absolute truth, which I do not nor do you. It that sense it's only an apparent paradoxical statement.There is a TON of externally corroborated evidence that confirms many of the historical events regarding the BibleAnd do any of those corroborated events include, rising from the dead, turning water into wine, talking bushes, talking animals, sun stopping in the sky, or parting of the red sea?Can any of the supernatural elements be corroborated? If we are being honest with ourselves the answer is No.Ah and there-in lies a problem. You call them false or exaggerated because you don't accept them, not because of any sort of evidence.So is evidence a requirement to disbelieve uncorroborated supernatural claims, or just when they are Christian? Do I need to present evidence that Goblins aren't real as well? There is a distinction however. These people lived alongside Jesus.Thus, why I said "The Jews" who also lived alongside Jesus and still did not believe and don't believe the things claimed about him.You would think somewhere in there, because the writings happened so close to his death that someone would have said... "Hey, I was there and THAT didn't happen!"Maybe you would, but I wouldn't. As I stated earlier, there were no written records of Jesus' life until 70 years after he died, and the average lifespan back then was about 30 years. So it's pretty unlikely that anyone would say that, and even more unlikely that they were also literate for their objections to have lasted over time.I see you trying to force some sort of hypothetical situation as truth.The very fact that I stated it as a hypothetical means I acknowledge that it isn't true. You just don't like the apparent implication that I am making. I am drawing a picture here to show how easy it would be to convince people back then that one was the messiah. Jesus and his flock were just one of many cult followings, and if not for Constantine it probably would have been largely forgotten by history. It's not hard, even today to convince people that you have supernatural powers.The burden of proof doesn't rest on me, it rests on you.Bullshit it doesn't. When you say that such and such positively did happen, the burden of proof rests upon you.You can see this all the time in courts of law. If a witness were to have confirmation time and time again that he was telling the truth and then told you about something crazy that happened, should you at that point immediately disregard what he says?This is actually not how courts work at all, and it certainly isn't how logic works. In the Court of Law, there is this concept of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" which means that the person making the accusation (or the claim) is the one who needs to provide compelling evidence. In other words, if you say something happened, then you are the one who needs to prove it. The person who says "That's not true" doesn't need to prove a damn thing. In the legal system, eyewitness testimony is actually the most unreliable form of evidence there is, and regularly leads to wrongful convictions. Now, if compelling proof were provided, then and only then would the negative claim need to provide some counter-proof.In logic, it is the person who makes the affirmative claim who bears the burden of proof. A negation does not require evidence, and to invalidate a negation one only needs to prove the positive.I have faith that there is a God and you have faith that there isn't.No, I don't. Disbelief doesn't require faith. Faith is a form of belief. You are essentially saying "You believe in your disbelief" which is a contradiction of terms.One who studies the Bible as a profession.Are you a biblical scholar?Could be an argument for disbelieving that a global flood happened yes. Could also mean that it wasn't a global flood and just the flood of a particular region which would have seemed like a global flood to the writer.So the bible is speaking about something which 'seemed' to be the case but wasn't. I would argue that this is quite common within the bible. Things which seemed to be true to the biblical authors, but weren't.So I assume we can stop believing in this multi-verse non-sense then?As soon as we can stop believing God. There is no more evidence for God than there is for a multi-verse. I have only said that a multi-verse is a possibility but you've said that not only is there absolutely a God, but that it is the Christian one. Are you willing to downgrade God to just a possibility?Can we also throw out common decent and many of Darwin's theories that are still waiting to be "confirmed" by archaeology?Archaeology? You mean Paleontology? Common descent is as about as 'confirmed' as things in science can get. Biologists may still argue over the details, but that common descent holds true is not in doubt by biologists and is supported by a plethora of scientific evidence. The only doubt stems from those who have religious objections.