Christianity is Reasonable- Atheism is Not.
Debate Rounds (5)
I accept, and as the instigator didnt create definitions i will
one who is not a theist, one who does not believe in any gods 
the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies 
being in accordance with reason 
a statement offered in explanation or justification 
I hope for a good debate
reason- ability to reach logical conclusions via cognitive faculties.
Premise One- Without God you cant know anything.
Premise Two- God is the pre-condition for reason.
Conclusion- because without God, knowledge is unattainable, the atheist can't know that his reasoning is sound. Without knowledge of valid reasoning, Con has conceded the debate by accepting it.
Furthermore, the atheist shows that he actually lives like he believes in God, because he must borrow standards in which his worldview cannot account for, standards such as; laws of logic, induction, and morality. He must borrow these from my worldview in order to raise any objection to my worldview.
Since Con is unwilling to admit the Triune of God Scripture lives, he has given up any justification for valid reasoning, and he likewise has given up any right to make any knowledge claims- including atheism is a reasonable option.
Considering all this, it logically (a Christian concept) follows that Atheism isn't just an unreasonable option, it is a blatantly absurd one, and Christianity isn't just a more reasonable option- it is the only viable one.
First of all, thanks for a first argument.
As I first selected the definitions, my definition of reason stands.
For christianity to be real, the bible must be reasonable and proven. However lots of key parts were proven false by science, while reason is being proven by science. For example the bible states that the god created the universe, however eventhough science didn't yet prove the big bang happened, there's a big chance it did. Also the bible says, earth was created in 7 days, which is disproven, by how new planets are formed, and the bible tells us, the world is 6'000 years old, but the fossil record proved, we even existed longer than 6'00 years.  Thereby, the bible isn't reasonable from the definition and as it's the sacred scripture of christianity, thent follows that a: god is a liar or b: god doesn't exist. Since it can't be the former due to the bible, it has to be the lattter in which case it follows that christianity isn't reasonable as their god doesn't exist and their religion is based on lies.
Now for the rebuttals:
The instigator, as he didn't state the BOP, typically the BOP is with the investigator, so I he has to prove without a doubt his case. Second of alll his premises aren't fully explained, why ca;t you know anything without god, especcialy as that is not true. So he is saying if you're atheist you can't know what 1+1 is as that is something to know. That's just deregotary. Then he doesn't explain why is god the pre-condition for reason, especcialy when science is the pre-condition for reason according to the definiton of logic and justification. Also how can't an atheist have sound reasoning and why is knowledge unattainable without god. The definition of logic is " . Also the definition of induction is "
: Bible, Genesis 1
My beliefs are provided in the definition of Christianity that you provided. Somehow your definition for reason will suffice, but not the definition of Christianity I agreed to? I find that more than a bit curious.
Perhaps challenging you in the form of some questions might move this sloughful horse along:
1. Can you give an account for absolute truth, provided you believe such a thing exist?
2. Principles of induction assume uniformity in nature, that is the idea that the future will be as the past. The most revered atheistic philosophers such as Bertrand Russell and David Hume were at least humble enough to admit that justifying assuming these principles was a hurdle they could never clear, given the atheistic premise that we are just highly evolved meat machines, that we are just time and chance reacting on matter.
3. Can you explain to me where we get our morals? Are they objective or relative and subjective?
4. How do you know you have valid reasoning? What do you appeal to to justify the idea the claim that you do?
As a Christian, I can justify absolute truth, induction, objective morality, and valid reasoning. The proof that God exists, is that without Him you can prove anything.
You may not agree with my justification, but as it stands, I have justification, and you have yet to provide one.
I have to give justification for valid reasoning, first of all, I don't need to as as long as I make atheism reasonable I win, you really don't understand BOP and who has it.
1.Science is the absolute truth, as science is a subject of study, not a being and so can only tell the truth
2. I can rebuke this just by you ignoring the definition, I gave last round since you didn't give one before which is a "
Well, considering the catalyzing theme of this debate focuses squarely on reason. So it seems appropriate to justify the validity of your reason.
//You really don't understand the BOP and who has it//
You really dont understand that in dismantling your ostensible right for knowledge claims because of lack of justification for valid reasoning has served precisely as my BOP that atheism is unreasonable. Furthermore, I have given you justification why my position is reasonable, you just dont like the answer. I start with God as my necessary pre-condition for reason. I do not reason my way to God. As soon as I appeal to an outside source to authenticate the existence of the God of Scripture, that outside source has necessarily become y ultimate authority. I'm a Christian, and I wont blaspheme God like that.
1. //Science is the absolute truth//
This ranks up at the list of the most absurd statements ever made by atheists. I have never heard any atheist ever at any time say something so nonsensical.
2. //I can rebuke this just by you ignoring the definition I gave last round since you didn't give one//
How convenient. Had I known I was going to need to define every word in order to prevent you from avoiding questions that make you uncomfortable, I would have. What is the definition of definition? I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is...
3. //morals are objective as their written by laws and so are objective, because laws are objective//
As it is always proper to give credit where its due, so should I here: you are excellent in the art of not proving a point whatsoever.
What this sounds like, is that morals are objective because societal conventions have made laws that say so. Problem is, we have no right for moral indignation for the rape of little girls of a society passes a law that makes it "morally" acceptable.
All you have done is moved the goal post. What is the moral standard in which we judge if a law is moral/immoral.
5. //I appeal to science//
When you appeal to science to use utilize your reasoning to ascertain the methods of study? Stop obfuscating the question and admit you use your reasoning to justify your reasoning- we're running out of town.
//Why do you think the world is 6,000 yrs old//
Our debate is not about facts. Facts are facts by virtue of them being facts. Our debate is on how we interpret those facts, and the vehicle that will drive us to those interpretations are our presuppositions. This is why if a fossil is put in front of us I can say "a flood" and you can say "millions of years". Perhaps your faith relies too heavily on the Priestly Scientists.
In short, Im not interested in mowing over weeds all day. If we dont get to the root, they'll grow right back. I believe we should learn to crawl before we walk. Until you can provide justification for valid reasoning on objective principles, we will remain on all fours.
1. You still haven't given validity that god exists. For your argument to be logical, you must find evidence that god exists.
2. Exactly by not wanting to blaspheme god, you can't show where you get your logic from if god doesn't exist. Face the truth, i don't need to unless you fully justify your reasoning by proving god exists with concrete scientific evidence
3. Science can't lie
4. It's called semantics
5. The moral standard is made up by a majority of people in a nation
6. I am obfuscating it the same amount as you
7. Our debate is about the fact that god doesn't exist and to prove a fact you must give a fact. As you told me stop obfuscating the answer and answer "why do you think the world is 6,000 years old ", because byy not answering you are proving my point that you can't prove god exists and that the world is 6'000 years old. So try to prove this and stop avoiding the questions
Clamor runs yellow sushi under the east thereof implode the more.
As my opponent avoided my question once again and didn't justify god exists and instead wrote a useless statement, i have nothing to rebute and am sorry to the audience for such a illogical debate. I wish Pro will use logic in his future debates, but wish him a good time. VOTE PRO
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.