Former Atheist Here- Want To Debate Truth of Christianity
Now there are two things one must prove if one wants to convince others of the truth of Christianity. The first is the existence of God (this is the simple part). The second is the divinity of Jesus (this is harder but not impossible to argue).
First, the existence of God. There are many reasons, from looking at the world, to believe in the existence of God. For example, the beginning of the universe. All evidence from cosmology suggests the universe had a beginning. This means there was some definite time at which the universe sprang out of absolutely nothing. But this is obviously absurd. If things came from nothing, we would be living in a sort of "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" type of universe where sperm whales and teacups would appear in the sky at random. This shows the universe could not have come from nothing, unless there was something to produce it, like a whale needs parent whales to produce it. The thing that produces the universe, once we reach this logical and obvious conclusion that the universe springing out of nothing is absurd, must be something which does not consist of energy or matter, or space-time. Now the only things that fit that category are abstract objects like mathematical numbers or sets, or else some kind of mind beyond the universe. But the first kind of thing, abstract objects, don't cause things to occur, therefore we must draw the conclusion that a disemodied mind exists beyond the universe. This mind must be possessed of unimaginable power, since it created the universe out of nothing, and must also be personal because a mind just is personal. Therefore we can conclude a trancendent, powerful, and personal disemodied mind exists. This is what most Christians mean by God.
Now we come to reasons for believing Jesus was divine. In order to prove that I will show the ressurection occurred. If God raised him from the dead it confirms that Jesus was divine because this was supreme confirmation of his divine claims according to the New Testament. In order to prove he was resurrected I will analyse the historical facts surrounding Jesus' ressurection to see how likely it was that he was resurrected. I will use Bayesian analysis to show how on historical evidence we should believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
Let's let T=theism, let R= ressurection of Jesus, and D= the historical facts about the ressurection of Jesus (eg the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to others).
The probability of T is the argument I made above. Let's say the argument is 0.99% likely to prove God EXISTS, and the prior probability of atheism= 1-P(T)
P/T= 0.00001% (unlikely but not impossible)
P/1-P(T)= 0.00000000001% (vastly unlikely)
We balance the equation by assuming that there is equal probability God does not exist and that he does exist, and timesing these probabilities P/T* P/1-P(T)
Then we plug in the historical facts concerning Jesus' ressurection by dividing those probabilities by the P(D|R). Let's say P(D|R)= 0.75. When we divide the numbers, we find the total of them is 0.977, so it is 99.7% likely that God exists when we look at the historical data on Jesus' ressurection in a non-biased way. Thus we confirm Jesus was divine and we prove that God existed as Jesus of Nazareth.
"First, the existence of God. There are many reasons, from looking at the world, to believe in the existence of God. For example, the beginning of the universe. All evidence from cosmology suggests the universe had a beginning. This means there was some definite time at which the universe sprang out of absolutely nothing. But this is obviously absurd".
Many people claim that there are countless reasons to believe in God, from little things, such as the good fortune to catch your coffee mug you knocked off the counter before it breaks, to the beginning of the universe. Yes, the universe based off the current evidence provided through cosmology shows that the universe is currently expanding and that because of this, and through logical thought, the universe at some point must have been much smaller and that it must have had a beginning. It is also theorized that the universe at one point had been something called a singularity. This is something of its nature we are unsure and have come to realize that it is in fact outside of our known physics. Yes, these things are true but inserting ‘God’ into the argument does not mean that this is true because there is no other explanation for it.
You have claimed that anything springing from nothing is “obviously absurd”. But later on you contradict yourself by claiming an almighty being, of course, can do this and without any explanation at all of where this “God” himself came from. We presume that “God” springs up from nothing and he himself creates objects out of nothing. That in itself is more than unlikely. It leaves many open doors into the argument with the questions, “Where did God from” “If creating anything out of nothing is absurd than how can God do it?”
Furthermore, placing “God” as the answer to a problem, question, or an unknown action or phenomenon is not justifiable as being the absolute answer. “God” is an untestable hypothesis which means that it cannot be directly tested, observed or is in any case can be used as a reliable source in the scientific community. Therefore, saying that “God” did anything can be used much to a religious persons advantages when it comes to “Filling in the blanks” of scientific questions that cannot be answered in the direct moment, such as the beginning of the universe. Because science cannot test “God” and it also cannot fill in the answer at the moment without confirmed ideas or hypothesis’, the argument used most commonly by religious persons are to their advantage because no one can completely debunk the argument because it cannot be tested. “God” relies solely on faith, not on facts in this situation. “God” is a filler for ignorance and lack of understanding regarding events that cannot be immediately explained. You show this through what you say in the previous posted argument.
“The thing that produces the universe, once we reach this logical and obvious conclusion that the universe springing out of nothing is absurd…therefore we must draw the conclusion that a disembodied mind exists beyond the universe”
This argument is based on faulted thinking and ignorance. “A universe coming out of nothing is absurd therefore ‘God’” is not a well based argument. To say ‘God’ is the only answer would be wrong. There is no one explanation at the moment and just because no one has the answer quite yet does not mean we won’t. It is better to admit that you do not know the answer than to pretend you have the answer. There is no evidence to support any super natural being ever existed before hand and it still brings in the question “Who is this ‘God’ that he himself is created and appears out of nothing? Obviously a ‘God’ cannot appear out of nothing as a universe cannot appear out of nothing if we follow your logic.”
Regarding your method of trying to “prove” the divinity of Jesus I have to say I must disregard it as I’m sure you have no idea what you’re talking about. It was not related or supported by any math I’ve seen or looked into. This argument is very similar to what a Mr. William Craig used in his debate against Bart Ehrman. I have to say I have to quote Mr. Ehrman here and say “Thank you… for that impressive refutation! I do have to tell you that if you think I’m going to change my mind because you have mathematical proof for the existence of God, I’m sorry, but it isn’t going to happen!”
Simply the “Math” doesn’t quite add up seeing as “the historical facts” of Jesus’ Resurrection from the dead have no actual historical confirmation on the subject and that the belief that a man was reanimated, walked around and then ascended to heaven, is purely based on faith, not fact. If this was historical fact, not many people would be denying that Jesus was divine or that he ascended to heaven. It can be argued if Jesus himself actually lived at all and at the least, the evidence for his existence outside of the bible is scarcely seen. Therefore whatever argument you were using in your “math” falls apart with the loss of a variable. Replacing your “facts” with what it actually is, “faith and hypothetical assumptions” shows that the “math” itself is credit less.
So far I see no truth in an argument presented so far. I see trying to fit “God” into a missing piece to explain it and to assume that you know all of the answers because “God” cannot be completely disproven as to your own tactical advantage as well as ramblings that make you seem that you somehow have the “proof” to “God” and “divinity” of Jesus. All of these are based off biased opinions and faith, not historical evidence and fact.
Craig, William L., and Bart D. Ehrman. "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? Read More: Http://www.reasonablefaith.org...; Reasonable Faith. College of the Holy Cross, 28 Mar. 2006. Web. 13 Jan. 2015.
"God." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2015. <http://www.merriam-webster.com...;.
RotomYou forfeited this round.
RotomYou forfeited this round.
My arguments stand.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|