there is a god

if i convince you to come to Christ pls share my points

jesus is lord and lord created everything thus he owns us and we should worship him

I thank my opponent for his argument. I will start by organizing the opponent’s argument into multiple points, so that I might be able to better respond to it. Following this, I’ll give a general overview of my argumentation strategy, finally moving into specific arguments.
Opponent’s Arguments
1. Plants have medicinal properties, often more effective than man made drugs. We can conclude that God created them and, thus, exists.
2. The Bible indicates that taking alcohol during pregnancy is unhealthy, a medical fact not discovered until recently. This indicates the existence of God.
3. Assorted Points:
a) A man in the Bible was depressed until he started eating healthier, at which point he was no longer depressed.
b) The Bible indicates that the Earth “floats in space”, a fact not discovered until after the Bible was written.
c) Christianity is the most popular religion, therefore it must be true.
4. Unclear Points:
a) Large houses tend to be haunted, implying that rich people sold their souls to the devil.
b) “End Times prophecy fulfillment” and “trumpets being sounded”.
I believe this includes everything Pro talked about. I’ll now detail my argumentation strategy/philosophy, then move into arguments.
Burden of Proof
While I believe that many debates are improved by a shared burden of proof, this is not one of those debates. Existential claims of the form, “The non-abstract thing X exists,” necessarily requires the burden of proof to be on the one making the claim. This is because it is nigh impossible to demonstrate that many objects don’t exist anywhere. That is, it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. As such, any other burden of proof distribution would render any such debate useless.
Thus, the burden of proof rests solely on my opponent. Because of this my arguments will be in the vain of demonstrating my opponent’s claims unsound. If I do show my opponent’s arguments to be flawed, then he has failed to his burden of proof and should lose the debate. If I deem it necessary, I may later present an epistemological argument relating to the idea of believing things without evidence. If I do this, it will be in the second or third round, to give my opponent ample time to respond. 
My Opponent's Sources
The opponent has given us a number of sources. In some cases, I will not provide an opposing source, but will instead argue that the opponent’s source is fundamentally unreliable. Whenever possible, though, I will not discredit my opponent's sources if it is not necessary. 
Responses to Arguments
I will follow the numbering scheme set about above in my overview of the opponent’s arguments. For the sake of brevity, I will shorten the opponent’s claim. Refer to the above for the full claim.
1. Plants as medicine.
The opponent’s entire argument rests upon the idea that plants having significant medicinal properties directly implies that God exists. The implication is that medicinal plants could not have occurred naturally.
Therein is the first problem in my opponent’s argument. What reason do we have to believe that medicinally valuable plants cannot occur naturally? The opponent seems to imply that because smart men created drugs, an even smarter thing must have created plants, since they are often more effective than drugs (according to the opponent). However, this argument would require that plants were created in the first place. That is, the opponent is implicitly using the existence of God to prove the existence of God. This type of circular reasoning is fallacious.
Unless the opponent provides some level of proof that medicinally useful plants could not occur naturally, we have no reason to accept this argument. I will quote the opponent, “[H]ow would a bunch of chemicals create medicine that is better than scientist[s] unless those chemicals were [created by] god.” This is an excellent question, and it is precisely the opponent’s job to answer it.
The opponent goes on to present various evidence that plants are effective medicines. While many of these claims (and their sources) are dubious, it is not currently necessary to refute them since, even if the claims are true, it does not imply the plants were created at all.
2. The Bible’s knowledge of alcohol.
I offer two responses, covering two different angles.
The first is a skeptical response. It is not clear from biblical passage offered that the angel did not want the woman drinking because he thought it bad for her. The angel says, “drink no wine or other fermented drink and do not eat anything unclean, because the boy will be a Nazirite of God…” It is possible that the angel didn’t want the woman to drink/eat uncleanly precisely because the son needed to be “pure”, as God would enjoy this type of agent.
This is a reasonable interpretation of the scenario given that the Bible in many cases places value in purity and cleanliness, as it is associated with holiness. Importantly, I am not claiming this is what the angel meant. Rather, I am showing the opponent’s interpretation is not the only reasonable one and thus does not constitute proof.
My second point is that the opponent’s own evidence [1] reveals that some had suspicions regarding alcohol and pregnancy more than 2,000 years ago. Per the opponent’s evidence, “Aristotle is quoted to have warned against the hazard of drinking during pregnancy, ‘...drunken… women most often bring forth children like unto themselves, morose and languid.’” That is, Aristotle recognized that women who drank heavily often produced sickly children. To be clear, Aristotle was born in 384 BC.
This makes sense, since we know alcohol does have negative effects during pregnancy. Though it was not considered a rigorous, medical fact until recently, it has certainly always been true. Thus, it is reasonable that perceptive people long ago might have noticed that drinking seems to produce unhealthy children.
Then even if the Bible was referring to the negative relationship between alcohol and pregnancy, it does not imply divine knowledge. Instead, it shows that humans are capable of recognizing patterns.
For the opponent to meet his burden of proof here, he needs to show that a) the Bible was almost certainly claiming that alcohol was bad for pregnant women and b) that early humans were incapable of recognizing this, at least informally.
3a. Depression in the Bible.
The opponent claims that depression is a negative condition and that a person in the Bible was depressed. That person, upon eating healthier, began to look and feel healthier.
This seems entirely reasonable, but it doesn’t demonstrate the existence of God. It is known that diet and mental health have a positive association. [2] It is not surprising that someone eating healthier would become more physically fit and less depressed. But how this connects to God is unclear.
The opponent will need to expand this argument in order to meet the minimum necessary burden of proof.
3b. The Bible and the floating earth.
The opponent fails to produce evidence that people of the past did not believe the earth existed in space. Whereas it may be true that people at some point believed the earth flat, this does not imply that they also believed it didn’t exist in space. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
The opponent will need to demonstrate that they are mutually exclusive for this argument to carry weight.
3c. Christianity is popular.
The is a standard argumentum ad populum fallacy. [3] Just because many people believe a thing does not make that thing true. Consider that, before the rise of Christianity, Hinduism was the most popular religion. People believed this was the true religion more than any other. If we are to believe that popularity implies truth, then we would be forced to believe that Hinduism was accurate for some time and that God did not exist, until some point in time where suddenly he started existing (precisely when more people believed in Him than any other god.) This clearly does not make sense.
4. Unclear points.
I’ve put these into subpoints, but I’ll address them all here. I’ve labelled these as “unclear” because either it is not obvious how they relate to the claim my opponent is trying to prove or they are so speculative that it is difficult to reasonably consider them.
First, the opponent claims that haunted houses tend to be mansions and that this further means that rich people must have sold their souls to the devil.
We have no reason to believe that any houses are actually haunted. Second, even if they are, it is entirely speculative that this is because the previous owners sold their souls to the devil. It is a guess. Further, if they did sell their souls for wealth, we can’t reasonably conclude that it was the Christian devil. There are numerous mythological beings which would make a similar deal. This argument needs significantly more structure and evidence to be considered.
Next, the opponent talks about an “end times” prophecy and implies that this prophecy will soon be fulfilled.
Again, this is entirely speculative. We should note that the end times have not occurred, nor has any supernatural entity made it clear that it is causing an end times event. The opponent attempts to draw some connections from the Bible to current events, specifically army size and the sound of trumpets.
Neither of these “connections” constitute sufficient proof. Whether or not God exists, it is not unreasonable that an army somewhere would eventually reach the size of 200 million, given our exponentially increasing.
Conclusion
The opponent offers numerous arguments for the existence of God, but we have demonstrated that each of them does not offer enough evidence for us to believe their claims. I’ve attempted to be specific on the evidence the opponent would need to present in order for the arguments to hold. Until this is provided, at least to some degree, the opponent has not maintained his burden of proof and cannot be given the debate.
Thanks for reading.
My Sources
[1] - https://bit.ly/2Chtzaj
[2] - https://bit.ly/2tg2DFG
[3] - https://bit.ly/2TtPCVU

i think con does not know how much thought it would take to create medicine with medical property. and to say that a bunch of chemicals by chance mixed together and produces something that can heal brain damage and DNA is like saying a bunch of chemicals can drive a car a bunch of chemicals did your math homework.  

lets say after years of study a group of scientist created medicine that is just as effective as the turmeric plant which would never happen but let say it did

there medicine regenerates a damaged brain like tumeric

there medicine stops dna damage for the day like tumeric

helps with arthritis cancer age related diseases and depression

at the laundry list of over 800 diseases that this spice (or its components, e.g. curcumin) has been studied for to prevent and/or treat, the sheer volume of supportive literature is astounding.

800 diseases how would a bunch of chemicals know what a disease is.  let alone 800 and learn how to treat them and lets say for each disease . let say it takes scientist years to treat one disease. how would you make the claim that a bunch of chemicals randomly created medicine that treats 800 diseases. that's like winning the lottery 800 timers.

con sayed

if god said don't drink while being pregnant do you believe it because its can harm the baby or that it is unholy to do so.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there are 247,813,910 adults living in the United States. The total population was estimated at 321,418,820 people, with 77.1 percent of those people being over 18.

We have no reason to believe that any houses are actually haunted. Second, even if they are, it is entirely speculative that this is because the previous owners sold their souls to the devil. It is a guess. Further, if they did sell their souls for wealth, we can’t reasonably conclude that it was the Christian devil. There are numerous mythological beings which would make a similar deal. This argument needs significantly more structure and evidence to be considered.

I thank my opponent for his prompt response and for following the order of argumentation that was defined in the previous round. This way, I can cover the arguments, and the opponent’s responses, in the same order as previously. I will do that now.
1. Medicinal plants.
To recap, the opponent claims that plants have excellent medicinal properties and that humans, with their great intelligence, struggle to create drugs as effective as said herbs. I argued that, even if we suppose that plants have the degree of medicinal benefits the opponent claims, it does not indicate that the plants were created.
The opponent claims that “a bunch of chemicals by chance mixed together and produces something that can heal … is like saying a bunch of chemicals can drive a car [or] a bunch of chemicals did your math homework.”
The opponent’s underlying claim is that things which we perceive as complex can only be the product of design. The problem with this claim is that the opponent has not proved it, or even presented evidence suggesting it’s true. The opponent’s argue is meant to assume that it’s obvious that complex things are designed. But why?
We have no empirical reason to believe that complexity implies design. It is true that humans do design complex things, but we should not assume this means all complex things are designed. In fact, the majority of “chemicals” we see on a day-to-day basis were not created by man. This means the complex creations of man are only a very small subset of all complex chemicals. We cannot assume that the property of a small subset applies to the entire set.
That is, we cannot assume that because a small portion of complex things are man made means all complex things are man made. To make this assumption would be to make a fallacy of composition. [1]
The rest of the opponent’s response makes the assumption that plants were created. He is basically arguing, “If we assume that plants were created, then clearly they were not created by man, since plants are much more effective than synthetic drugs.” And even if we assume this statement is true, we have not met its basic assumption that plants are created.
The opponent will need to provide evidence, or otherwise a reasonable logical argument, that complex things cannot arise randomly. We see a number of complex things every day which man did not create, and those things seem to be the result of natural processes. Thus, we cannot make the assumption that complexity implies creation without further evidence.
Until that evidence is provided, the burden of proof is not met here.
2. The pregnant woman, alcohol, and the Bible.
Summarizing what came before, the opponent claimed the Bible knew about the dangers of alcohol during pregnancy long before science, implying divine knowledge. I argued that it’s possible the opponent is misinterpreting the point of the story and that people 2,500 years ago knew, at least informally, that alcohol and pregnancy did not always mix.
The opponent ignores the last point, which is perhaps the most compelling of my two points and so it is the point I will focus on. Recall the opponent’s own evidence says that, while it was not objectively proven that alcohol and pregnancy were a harmful combination until recently, that it was known at least as far back as 500 BC that alcohol during pregnancy might be harmful. Aristotle himself noted the connection.
I further noted that this was not unreasonable, given that pregnant women who drink are more likely to produce an unhealthy child and that, if you see enough births this way, you’d be able to see a pattern.
Even the first point, regarding interpretation, is not well countered. In fact, my opponent seems to give an example supporting my argument. He claims that if he were to stop debating me, it might be because he considers me unholy or it might be because I beat his arguments. This line of logic implies that it is difficult to determine someone else’s intentions.
But this precisely supports my point -- we don’t know the intention of the referenced verse. It is possible it’s because the angel has foreknowledge of the risks of alcohol during pregnancy, but it’s also possible that the angel wanted the woman to “be clean” and “pure”, since this is an oft valued trait in the Bible. Unless more specific evidence is presented, we can’t use this verse as evidence of divine knowledge.
Thus, both of my points still stand. The opponent will need to show that a) people did not have some sense that alcohol and pregnancy were related and b) that the particular story was almost certainly referring to the dangers of alcohol and pregnancy.
3a. Depression in the Bible.
I will not do a recap here, because it seems the opponent did not intend to make this argument.
3b. The Bible and the floating earth.
To recap, the opponent claims that the Bible knew the earth floated in space (whereas people believed the earth was flat), and implied that this constituted divine knowledge. I argued that the earth being flat and the earth being in space were not mutually exclusive. That is, it’s possible for a person to believe that the flat earth exists in space. (Not an unreasonable position if you believe the earth is flat, since there aren’t many other places the flat earth could be except space.)
The opponent responds by providing multiple verses which claim the earth was created over empty space. This does not affect the argument, since I never denied that the Bible made this claim. My point was that the opponent has not demonstrated that people of this time believed the earth existed anywhere else besides space.
Thus, such a passage could constitute only human knowledge and nothing divine.
The opponent also refers to Isaiah 40:22 as evidence that people believed the earth was round. Looking at the verse reveals that this is an exaggeration. The verse refers to the “great circle of earth”. Even modern day flat earthers believe the early is “circular”, they just believe that this is a two-dimensional circle, as opposed to a three-dimensional one.
Then this still does not constitute divine knowledge.
4. Miscellaneous.
4a. Prophecy of end times.
The opponent notes that it is astounding that an army of 200 million people could exist, but does not further provide evidence that this is related to the “end times”. He notes that 200 million is nearly the population of the U.S. and is three times the size of the UK. Again, it may be astounding that China intends to amass such a large army, if it is true, but it still does not constitute evidence for the opponent’s point.
The opponent further seems to agree with my point about the trumpets. I won’t speculate as to what actually caused the noises.
In summary, we do not have sufficient reason to believe that a particularly large army is evidence of the end times. Were the end times to begin, this would be a very different discussion.
4b. Haunted Houses
The opponent laments that I ask him to demonstrate that houses can be haunted, but sadly this is his burden. If we cannot establish that houses are haunted, then the rest of his argument cannot even begin to be considered.
The mention of haunted houses is why I placed this argument in the “Unclear” pile in the first place. It’s not a small assumption that houses can actually be haunted, as this directly implies some type of supernatural behavior. Given that we are discussing the existence of a supernatural being, it’s not reasonable to simply “give” my opponent the free assumption that some supernatural things exist. While there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of hauntings, we’ve yet to see anything resembling scientific proof of hauntings. This, given that claims of hauntings have existed for hundreds of years.
Dropped Arguments
The opponent is the one making his case and I am trying to demonstrate that the case is not strong enough to be accepted. Thus, if the opponent wants to drop some arguments, he has the complete right to. In fact, dropping some arguments gives you time to focus on your strongest arguments and is often a good strategy.
I am mentioning these dropped arguments only for bookkeeping purposes, not to imply that the opponent has done something wrong in dropping them.
The “Depression in the Bible” was explicitly dropped, since it seemed I mistook this for an argument. Further, the “Christianity is Popular” argument was dropped.
Summary
The opponent still has not provided us with the evidence needed for us to consider his case strong. Again, I’ve attempted to note specifically where this evidence is lacking, so that the opponent can provide it. I’ll note that evidence can be composed of data (like the sources the opponent is linking) but it can also take the form of logical arguments. Both are acceptable and the opponent can provide either.
Miscellaneous Notes
It seems important to the opponent to note that plants are better than synthetic medicine in most ways. While I personally find many of his sources to be questionable, I am not arguing that it is wrong. My critique does not require that this plant evidence be untrue, as the argument being made is really more of an “Intelligent Design” argument than a “Plants Are Awesome” argument.
I think the opponent’s plant argument is his most compelling. It might be advantageous for him to really focus on this idea of complexity and design. The intelligent design argument has been around for a long time and has the potential to create very rich, interesting debates.
Sources
[1] - https://bit.ly/2IahJAH

alright con can not seem to understand that traversing the brain with 270 pathways to healing  brain damage would take god like intelligence.

but this is what turmeric does. note we have only discovered 270 pathways that turmeric uses to heal brain damage

the smartest men on the planet with IQ above 150 could not even dream to create a drug that does the same thing as this food. so it is silly and stupid to believe a bunch of chemicals which do not have the ability to think to do this. that's the same as saying a hurricane invented turmeric or even an explosion maybe even a flood

you must have mixed to bible points

in this case the quote was

con said

 because in the bible a 200 million soldier army  will kill 1/3 of the planet

and china is going around threatening everyone with a 200 million soldier army

we learned that alcohol was bad  in the 1970s before that we gave alcohol to pregnant people for morning sickness. con points out that some people started to suspect that alcohol was bad for you around 500 ac. ac means after Christ. bc means before Christ. Samuel birth happened before Christ. so this angle still knew before anyone else. because Samuel mother was told not to drink while pregnant before Christ birth and people did not learn that alcohol was bad 500 years after Christs birth

con says that we can not know why god said to Samuel mother when she was pregnant not to drink any wine while pregnant.

i say its pretty obvious because wine is dangerous to babies but con says he has to exactly say don't drink wine because it bad for baby.

what if screwed your girlfriend and our girlfriend said that she slept with me and you confront me and i say how do you know that i screwed her she only said i slept with her

“Christianity is Popular” argument was dropped. i said that the heaven or hell system would not work.

because i said this

I thank my opponent for his response.
Pro made one new argument, so I will cover that first. Then, I’ll cover the remaining points.
5. Mitochondrial Eve
There is a lot to unpack here. I imagine we could have a whole debate on the implications of this very point. However, for the sake of time I will make one response. If the opponent renders this response moot, we will explore this point fully in R4.
Let us, for the sake of discussion, suppose that there is a way to “count backwards” to the Mitochondrial Eve. This would tell us precisely two things: that our current understanding of evolution is incorrect and an approximate time at which humanity began.
It does not tell us how old the earth is; it is entirely possible that the earth existed before humanity. It does not tell us if the earth was created or if humanity was itself created. The mechanism of evolution being unviable does not imply creation. This assumes that the only two explanations for modern human life are “evolution” and “God”, but we really have no reason to believe this. Technically speaking, there are any number of possibilities.
Thus, the opponent would need to demonstrate (again, if we take Mitochondrial Eve human dating as fact) that this directly implies the existence of God. I remind the opponent and the reader that we are not debating whether evolution exists, the merits of plant-based medicine, or anything like this. We are debating as to whether God exists and, as it stands, this point does not imply the existence of that God.
If we take this point of true, it only proves we are wrong about a scientific theory. It does not offer any alternatives. The opponent needs more evidence here, otherwise he has only demonstrated that science is wrong, not that God exists.
If we take this point as false, then it clearly does not imply the existence of God.
1. Plant based medicine.
I am glad for the opponent’s response, as it now more closely resembles what it has always implicitly been -- an intelligent design argument. The reader is likely familiar with this argument, but I will remind those who don’t.
The Intelligent Design argument (ID) claims that we live in a very complex universe in which certain things seem exceptionally suited to function in a useful capacity. For instance, some plants have the ability to heal human maladies. It argues that this complexity, well-suited to human needs, could not have arisen by random chance. Instead, it must be the product of a mind far more intelligent than humans. This mind must be God.
I offer two responses to this.
Why does it imply the existence of a god?
The opponent recognizes that plant-based medicine often behaves in complex ways. This cannot be doubted. He claims, “what do chemicals lack… intelligence”. We note that this is an assertion. He takes this fact as obvious, as if it is clear to all people, but no additional supporting evidence is given.
I certainly don’t take it as obvious and neither should any scientific thinker -- not without evidence. What argument do we have for the idea that complexity implies design other than “it is obvious”. Unfortunately, an appeal to what seems obvious is not sufficient in the way of proof, especially when it is not obvious to all.
Humans once considered it obvious that disease was the fault of the old gods, some sort of punishment for ill deeds. We now know that disease is nothing more than a biological phenomenon, not some prejudiced and deliberate act. Importantly, this humans who once found this fact so obvious were wrong. Humans finding something obvious does not constitute proof because humans reliably make mistakes.
Thus, the opponent would need to demonstrate that complexity can only happen because of intelligent design. We cannot accept the, “It is obvious,” argument.
If it does imply the existence of a god, why must it be God, of Christianity?
Let’s go a step further and suppose that complexity does indicate intelligent design. We arrive at another problem, even harder to overcome than the last.
If something intelligent did design the universe, Man, and plants, why should we believe it was the Christian God? There are many other gods thought to exist by some, with stories indicating they are equally as capable of such a feat. (It turns out that omnipotence is a trait associated with many gods.)
Further, it’s possible that the universe was created by a shy god who has not revealed itself in any way. Perhaps we were simply an experiment, tossed aside and abandoned? I only speculate to make the point that intelligent design does not imply the existence of a specific god.
Clearly the opponent is arguing for the existence of the Christian God, so he will need to provide additional evidence that, even if intelligent design is the case, that said design can only be the product of the Christian God.
2. Alcohol and pregnancy.
Recall that the opponent references a passage in the Bible which he claims indicates divine knowledge. I made two responses. First, that we cannot conclude that the story indicates knowledge of the link between alcohol and pregnancy. Second, the opponent’s own evidence implies that some people recognized the connection between pregnancy and alcohol some 2,500 years ago.
The opponent’s response to the first point is, “it’s pretty obvious…” Unfortunately, as was covered above, the “it is obvious” is not sufficient. While it is necessary to make some assumptions in debate, this is not one such case. We need more than the opponent’s opinion that it is obvious otherwise we must reject his argument.
Further, he does not address my second point regarding the fact that we have documented evidence (from Aristotle) that people saw, informally, a connection between alcohol and pregnancy. Thus, it’s entirely possible that the authors of the Bible suspected this fact and included it in their story.
3a. Depression in the Bible.
It seems that the opponent (maybe) is making an argument here? If so, it seems to be that the Bible was aware of depression and its associated negative health implications.
If this is so, it does not suggest the existence of God. Depression is not a disease which is difficult to recognize, nor is it unobvious that being depressed is worse than not being depressed. “It is better to be happy than unhappy,” is not divine knowledge. Rather, it is a philosophical assertion with which most people tend to agree.
Further, it should not be surprising to hear that people in Biblical times were aware that a healthy diet was good for you. They may not have been aware of the medical specifics, but it is not a difficult thing to pick up from experience. Similar to people of the time being aware that a knife to the heart is deadly, without knowing the specifics of how the heart functions.
3b. The Bible and the floating earth.
The opponent argued that the Bible asserted the earth existed in space and, because people believed in a flat earth, this must constitute divine knowledge. I responded by claiming that the earth suspending in space could coexist with believing the earth to be flat. The opponent responded with a verse referring to the earth as a “circle”. I noted that even a flat earth could be circular, still not creating a contradiction.
The opponent’s response is unclear. He notes that the shape of the earth has nothing to do with how it is “held up” in space. I agree, but it isn’t clear that this entails divine knowledge.
The opponent’s argument regarding divine knowledge (in both cases) is this: The Bible claims something which is true and which people of the time did not believe. Thus, we can conclude that man would not have written the verse, but instead God.
The opponent noting that a circular or flat earth is unrelated to the fact that earth is in space does not demonstrate that people of the time did not believe earth floated in space. This is my entire point -- the verse in question does not indicate some knowledge which people at the time did not agree with. At least, the opponent has not provided evidence of this. Until he does, he has not effectively demonstrated that we should take the passage as anything more than human knowledge.
4a. Prophecy of end times.
I will not recap the remaining arguments, as I do not think they will be critical to the outcome of this debate.
The opponent repeats himself that the Bible refers to a 200 million man army and that China has indicated the intention to amass a 200 million man army. My point remains that this does not imply that the Bible is somehow true. I can write a religious text for a new god claiming that the sun will continue to rise for 100 years. I will likely be correct, but this will not imply my religious text is true.
While it would be astounding to know there exists a 200 million man army, it is not unexpected. The human population has continued to grow exponentially. The more humans there are, the larger our armies. If we do not wipe ourselves out, we should not be surprised if one day there is a billion man army, or a then billion man army.
4b. Haunted houses and deals with Satan.
The opponent responds by claiming that “thousands of site[s]” have haunted house stories. He then claims that “even if [evidence exists for] a real haunted house, would you believe it? I would not.” The opponent seems to be as skeptical as I am regarding anecdotal evidence.
Anecdotal evidence exists for all manner of things that scientific evidence has not supported. If we considered anecdotal evidence to be valued, then most debates would be pointless, as you can always find something with anecdotal evidence supporting most any theory. We must resign ourselves to only accept scientific evidence. The opponent has not provided this and we cannot believe, then, that haunted houses exist. Then the rest of the argument does not follow.
4c. Christianity is popular.
The opponent remarks that much of the world is Christian, though they have had it rough lately.
This may be true, but I extend my previous arguments. Christianity being popular does not imply it is true; this is fundamentally a logical fallacy. The truth of a thing is not related to the number of people which believe that thing true. (Excepting, perhaps, some self-referential statements, of which this is not. Consider the statement, “Four people believe this statement is true.” Interesting to think about, no?)
Summary
We’ve gone over the opponent’s remarks and they didn’t add much new to the conversation, save for one additional argument. The opponent still has not provided sufficient evidence for us to accept any of his arguments. I look forward to his response.

but first i just want to explain why I'm doing this hell is a terrible place because it is forever and i do not want anyone to go there so i have come here to show how life is created intelligently to anyone who would listen. i don't want anyone dammed in hell

foolish evolution people believe that the owl lives at night and since it is hard to see at night over millions of years the owl evolved and gained  night vision so that it can see at night

there is a few problems with this would not the predators adapt to the stinging anemone and build resistance to it thus being able to hunt the clown fish

angle told a pregnant mother not to drink while pregnant we did not know that drinking while pregnancy was bad up until 1970s before that we gave wine to pregnant people as medicine in the 1950s some people had suspicion that it was bad during 500ac but this was 500 plus years after the angle tolld the pregnet mother not to drink wine.

he insist that god should be more clear next time and that he should give a reason for not drinking while pregnant.

in the book nickled and dimed a book i had to read in English class. theres a little story that the person in this liberal book tells. a female is having great medical trouble but she when to the doctors and they said nothing is wrong. one day god told the woman to go to the doctors but don't ride walk. so she does as he says and does not drive to the hospital but walks she gets there and collapses on the foor. why did god say don't ride walk. same reason why his angle said don't drink while pregnant.

fo the bible to say that there would be a 200 million man army is insanity that probably more people on the earth at that time. but for china to say they can amass an army of that size is amazing. the bible coming true. con says tht if you give enough time to something it would become true. this is not true untrue things will never be true and there are no prophesy's in the bible that are wrong all the prophesies that have been said have come true like the Israel being reborn in one day which happened in 1948. given the amount of prophesies there are in the bible how many of them are wrong.

i said a lot of people must believe in the bible for the heaven or hell system to work. he seems to believe that i am saying that i am saying that christianity is popular therefore it not real. which is not true.

i stated a fact that the bible says that that the bible says the earth floated n space. but con says this does not mean that they don't believe in flat earth. he is right it does not but they never said the earth is flat either so it is irrelevant. the earth floats in space which is 100 percent true. what if questions are not good for debating. what if they believed the earth was flat what if the believed the earth is on a turtle its irrelevant because it never says any of these things.

con states that i only proved the age of humans not  the earth. a human being 200000 years old does not mean the earth is 200000 years old. he world be correct if it was not for the fact that everything is created intelligently if everything is created by god then that means that he created the earth for humans live on thus he would have created humans right after creating the earth..

another example on how life is created intelligently. it is maddening trying to figure out  how to word things but i think i got it down. but i think con got what i been trying to say for the last couple months and he would be the first one i think so i want to thank him. always had trouble explaining things.

i have knowledge that it is hot during the summer so i applied this knowledge and took off my jacket to cool off

i have knowledge that it is cold during the winter so i applied this knowledge and wore a jacket to keep warm

the creator has knowledge that it is hot during the summer so he applied this knowledge and made it so the dog shed it fur/winter coat to cool off

the creator must have had knowledge that it is cold during the winter so he applied this knowledge and designed the dog to grow more fur during the winter. aka its winter coat.

only an intelligent being can possess knowledge

the big bang theory believes life came from an explosion from nothing. god says he created life from nothing maybe there is something there idk.

con said