Well, I really don't know where to begin. I guess I'll start out by saying that I am glad we are doing this. I hope both of us will learn some things in this debate. Now, I have a feeling that some of what I say is going to offend you. I certainly don't mean to offend you. It's just that I have found no way to voice my views without being offensive to some people. But it should be noted that I'm not trying to offend you -especially in a personal way. Okay, the topic of this debate is "Does the Judeo-Christian God (of the Bible) Exist?" Well, I have three ways in which I can argue. Since I don't know how you intend to argue, I can't really give a foundation for how I'm going to argue. After all, what my argument really boils down to is a denial of yours. But I do have a few points I'd like to make. First of all, I intend to show that the Bible is not worthy of trust. Now, there are a few ways in which I can do this. I can show errors in it. I can show contradictions. I can use rational thought to explain why the Bible can not be the word of God. The second way I intend to argue is by showing flaws in the nature of the god described by the Bible. If the Bible paints a picture of a god that can not possibly exist, then we can be certain that he doesn't exist. Now, oddly enough, I have a contention that there is no unified Christian belief. It seems to me that just about every Christian believes something different. So before we get too deep into the debate, I hope we can make it clear what sort of being we are talking about when we argue for and against it (with Biblical support, of course). This is very important. Without a clear picture of what God is, whatever arguments are presented to support the existence of God, they aren't going to get us anywhere without a coherent view of what God is. Being the negative debater, I am faced with a slightly different task than Gabby. I don't have any physical proof that God does not exist. After all, what proof could there be? All I have is logic. Personally, I think that logic is the best of evidence, since our senses don't always tell us the truth. This is leading into the third way I intend to debate (if the other ways fail to provide substantial evidence). This is a probabilistic way at looking at the existence of God. Is it more likely that God exists, or is it more likely that God does not exist? Hopefully the debate will not come to this, but one never knows. I contend that even if there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, it is still irrational to believe that God exists.