The Instigator
bebil10
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Dmot
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

It is reasonable to believe in the Christian god

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
bebil10
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 788 times Debate No: 56049
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

bebil10

Con

Ok, first round start out with the affirmative opening statement. Last round the affirmative will just respond with "done" and that will be it.

Definitions_- Christian God- described in the bible, had a son named Jesus, Omniscient, Omnipotent, OmniBenevolent, and granted us free will.

Reasonable-agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical:

Good Luck to my opponent.
Dmot

Pro

First of all, the debate is kind of misleading but for the sake of making my points, I'll leave that issue aside. It is the issue of the "Christian God." There is no such thing as the specifically "Christian God" or "Muslim God" etc. There is only the being known as God which is basically the concept of a fundamental reality and supreme first cause. This cause has various attributes. Now, whether such a being exists is a question of philosophy. However, it is a DIFFERENT question as to which religion to follow. THe existence of a fundamental being does not tell us WHETHER that being has communicated to man, and if so, WHICH revelation is correct. Christianity, Islam, etc. are claims that the fundamental being (i.e. God) has revealed Himself. Thus, it is possible to have God exist without revealing Himself. So its a different issue altogether.

In any case, I'm going to be arguing that believing in Christianity in general is reasonable, which is what I take it that you mean, even though you assume (wrongly as I point out above) that this entails a "specific God."


I am NOT arguing that Christianity is TRUE, only that it is RATIONAL. In bold are things that I think are good reasons to believe something is rational.


1. A belief is rational if rational people believe in it


This is one criterion for rationality. It is not the only one, but it is indicative of rationality. There are many rational people in the present day who believe in God in general and Christianity in particular. The fact that these people are rational is defensible on the grounds that they contribute great work in areas of science, history, philosophy, mathematics, and theology. They have had great influences and anyone with any intelectual honesty would admit they are rational even if they happen to be incorrect.

Since we are talking about Christianity, I will leave aside great thinkers who believed in the God of "Classical theism" in general (e.g. Aristotle arguably): Aquinas, Augustine, Albert the Great, Nicholas of Cussa, Wiliam of Ockham, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Boyle, Keplar, Descartes, Lincoln, Farraday, Lemaitre, Pasteur, Fr. Jaki, S. Barr, Fr. Spitzer, Craig, Plantinga, Mother Theresa

^All arguably intelligent, reasonable, people. Obviously, a random list I came up with that spans 1000+ years and many different disciplines.

2. A belief is rational if it has parsimonious explanatory value of facts in our world


Science shows the existnece of various coincidents in the laws and constants of nature. These values are considered coincidents because they all converge to allow for a stable universe with stable matter and ultimately for life. It seems highly improbable that this would be the case unless the universe were FINE TUNED for the existence of life which would indicate a designer(s) who cared about purpose in the universe. This is at least a reasonable pointer to the God of Christiantiy even if not proof.


Another example would be explaining the apparent existence of transcendant features of the world. For instance, the existence of love, self-sacrafice, and morality all make better sense in a theistic, and specifically Christian framework. A materialist has a harder time explaining these because they seem to transcend matter.


^These are just two examples, not proofs of God or Christianity, just two reasons why Chrsitianty can be seen as a parsimonious explanation to the human condition.

3. A belief is rational if it can explain deep mysterious of human existence and serve as a compass in life

It is a mystery why we are here, what we must do while we are here, and where we are going after death. If materialism is true, then we are stuck in a world without inherent purpose in which every last person we love will eventually be nothing, and in fact, even now is nothing but a collection of particles interacting. Religion makes sense of these mysteries, and specifically the Judeo-Christian tradition with its belief in the afterlife, Ressureciton of the Bodies, and value of redemptive suffering.


Christian socities generally have also been on the whole better than some of their barbairic counterparts. This doesn't prove truth but it shows beleif in the system is at least reasonable. For instance, the concept of human rights developed in the West, the part of the world where the Church shaped society. Similarly, Christianity generally promotes the equality of men and women, especially by promoting monogomous marriages which in Muslim countries and pagan nations this and many other rights are not granted to women.


Even if many Christians have done wrong, the system itself which has been founded on "Love your neighbor" and more than any other religion emphasizes this concept in the very fact that Christians believe that GOD HIMSELF died for the sins of every individual person. A moral framework with this as a foundation is going to have its benefits that a reasonable person may want to be a part of.

4. A belief is rational if there are rational arguments for its truth.

There are rational arguments for the existnece of God. These range from design arguments, to cosmological, to ontological and on and on. Some are more deeply philosophical, others are more scientific, others are simple and intuitive. To dismiss a tradition of theistic philosophy as irrational that goes back to the time of the greatest thinkers in history including Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Avencia, Aquinas, Anselm, etc. Is simply and obviously the height of arrogance

Now I will offer a simple argument for the existence of God:

1) There exists in the world things that are contingent, namely things that could exist or could not exist.
2) Contingent things point outside of themselves for the explanation of their existence because they cannot explain their own existence.
3) If all that existed was contingent, all existing things would have to point outside of itself for the explanation of existence
4) There exists nothing outside of "all that existed"
Therefore, there must be something that is not contingent, i.e. something that is necessary and explains its own existence.

In the interest of space, I can't defend each of these premises at length. Basically I will point out however the following:
1) This premise is certainly true as things we can concieve of fail to exist and things which do exist we could concieve of as failing to exist

2) Since a thing is contingent, by definition, it cannot explain its own existence. WHAT it is does not entail THAT it exists, hence if it is intelligible at all, its explanation is in something else.

3) This is based on a broad application of the principle of mereological composition...even if not taken in its extreme version, I still think that this premise is hard to deny. Great Muslim philosopher Avicenna argued for this premise specifically.

Now, you may retort "a necessary being isn't God!" but that misses the point. The specific traits of a necessary being have been defended at length. I can go into this later. And certianly this doesn't show CHRISTIANITY is true, but it lends credence to the belief since Christians are the largest group in the world to believe in a necessary being (a uinque God independent of all things)

5. A belief is rational if the opposing view has serious flaws

Materialism has some serious flaws, maybe there are answers, but the flaws are serious.

Example 1: Free will. If all we are is matter, how can we be truly free? Matter is governed by laws which entail there is no freedom. If this is the case, there is no such thing as true morality either. Since most atheists are materialists and think that the two are very much related, this is a problem for atheism.


Example 2: Apparent order in the universe: How can the universe be governed by such regularities and precise mathematical laws if not a product of a mind? How can the universe be through and through intelliglbe if not govnered by a mind. Either it is fundamentally irrational (as some atheists believe) or it is rational but then this leaves us asking: WHY? made by a mind?
Debate Round No. 1
bebil10

Con

Ok, I will use my third round to refute his arguments. In this round I intend to lay out several reasons why it is not reasonable to believe in the Christian God.

1. Theological Fatalism- The Christian god granted man free will. The Christian god is also omniscient which means god knows all that it is possible to know. Now the question becomes does Christianity grant god foreknowledge and the answer is a resounding yes, as Christianity is a prophetic religion where prophets were able to know the future, so therefore god would also be able to know the future, and what he is able to know he therefore knows. This becomes a serious problem for the religion. Here is why:
If god knows event X will happen, then god knows even X will happen is true
God knows event X will happen
Event X will happen is true

So X = T

Now when we look at free will, if event X pertained to an agent, the agent would have to either be able to do X or some other alternative, which would by default not be event X. Yet, we know that even X cannot be False so this renders all other options cannot happen because of the fact that the law of non contradiction states that X and ~X is not a possible option.

Lets clarify:

God Knows event X will happen means X is true

God gave us free will means event X is not decided yet.

These are 2 irreconcilable beliefs rendering belief in the Christian god Illogical and unreasonable.

2. The problem of Excessive evil.

The Christian god is suppose to be loving and all powerful. This means the Christian God can stop evil and would stop evil. Yet, we do not see this we see this God constantly allow children to starve and children to be raped.

I will assume my opponent agrees with this statement, that at least in some instances of child starvation or child rape it would have been better for it to have been stopped.

Yet, when defending the all loving god of Christianity we find that:

Everything god does is the most loving, god allows every child rape or starvation.
Therefore allowing every child rape and every starvation is the most loving thing he could do.

If the Christian does not agree with that position, there belief in god is contradictory with other known beliefs and therefore not rational.

Some stats you have to reconcile with the fact that God allows all this include:

Combining deceased, unborn, infants, and children, the estimated total prematurely loss of conceived humans is in the area of 350 billion. The number who have lived to maturity probably approaches only 50
billion. If these numbers are broadly correct, the combined prenatal and childhood prematurity deaths exceeds those who have become at least young adults by approximately 7 to 1. (Gregory Paul: THEODICY"S PROBLEM: A STATISTICAL
LOOK AT THE HOLOCAUST OF THE CHILDREN, AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF NATURAL EVIL FOR THE FREE WILL AND
BEST OF ALL WORLDS HYPOTHESES pg 128-129 http://gregspaul.webs.com...)

"According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they "die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death." http://www.globalissues.org...

"One U.S. governmental source counts 78,188 child victims of sexual abuse in 2003. That"s a rate of 1.2 per 1,000 American children.
"
The 2001 National Crime Victimization Survey, which only covers youth 12-17, estimates that 1.9 per 1,000 children are raped or sexually assaulted.
"
National surveys of adults find that 9-28% of women say they experienced some type of sexual abuse or assault in childhood. "http://www.unh.edu...

This facts are irreconcilable with the belief that the Christian God who is suppose to be all loving cannot exist.

I will see where my opponent goes with this but Free will certainly cannot solve this. " all forms of the free will defense fail, and since this defense alone had any chance of success there is no plausible theodicy on offer."( J.L. Mackie The Miracle of Theism pg 176), but I will address that further if he tries.

3. Belief in the Theological Jesus is completely irrational and unreasonable.

The theological Jesus is a myth. The key events that lead to the Christian god did not happen. This ranges from the virgin birth, where we find there are interesting reasons why the story says he was born of a virgin. As Bible Scholar Bart Ehrman puts it: "We have seen that Matthew is particularly keen to show that everything in Jesus birth, life, and death was a fulfillment of Scriptural prophecy. So why was he born of a virgin? It was because the Hebrew prophet Isaiah indicated that "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call him Immanuel" (Matthew 1:23, quoting Isaiah 7:14). Actually, that"s not exactly what Isaiah said. In the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah indicates that a "young woman" will conceive and bear a son, a prediction not of a future Messiah but of an event that was soon to take place in Isaiah"s own day.3 When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, however, Isaiah"s "young woman" (Hebrew alma; there is a different Hebrew word for "virgin") came to be rendered by the Greek word for "virgin" (parthenos), and that is the form of the Bible that Matthew read." (Jesus Interrupted pg 74) That on top of the fact that a virgin birth on its own is so unlikely that we should be very skeptical of any such claim, makes this event irrational to believe. Yet, it is really the resurrection that is key, to maintain the Christian God. Yet, we see the same problem with a resurrection being so unlikely that any claim of one should be taken with a grain of salt. We know this how, well we can look at the past billions of deaths and find that there are exactly zero demonstrated resurrections after three days. We also know this based on science, the brain would be non functional after hours. The common retort to this is the resurrection is not unlikely with god, but that is nonsense, since if a god exists he existed while all the data was being compiled to determine that a resurrection is unlikely. So it remains irrational to believe that 2000 years ago a man rose from the dead because god wanted him to or because he was god. As Philosopher Matthew McCormick points out in his book "Atheism and the Case Against Christ" we have more evidence for witches in Salem in the 1600s then we do for the resurrection, yet we do not believe there were actually witches. There are signed affidavits, testimony of fathers sons turning on their own family that far outweighs the 4 contradictory gospels we have to establish the resurrection. Yet, my opponent knows there were no witches in Salem, but necessarily to accept the Christian god must believe on far inferior evidence that Jesus resurrected.

4. The Lack of Evidence for God is Evidence of absence.

When we look at the Christian God there are certain things we should see, such as prayer being successful. Here are some verses to support it: James 5:14"15 "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up."

John 14: 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Matthew 17:20 He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, "Move from here to there," and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Yet, what we find is Prayer to this god does not work. In 2006, a the largest prayer study found no impact from prayer. http://www.nytimes.com....
Dmot

Pro

Your quote in
italics, my comments underneath in regular print.




“Event X will happen is true”



This
argument is correct. I hold that the conclusion is true, we have no
disagreement.



“God Knows event X will happen means X is true

God gave us free will means event X is
not decided yet.”

I bolded a statement which I disagree with. The first
statement under is simply restating your initial argument which I agree with.
The bold statement however is simply a false definition of free will. Free will
doesn’t have to do with temporal relations. It has to do with the causal power
involved. Let’s assume that event X is an act of a personal agent. I agree that
“Event X will happen is true.” However, this raises the question: “WHY does
event X happen?” I can consistently maintain that the cause of event X is a
free choice, one in which it is nothing but the agent’s decision which makes X to be the case and at the same time maintain
that God being outside of time knew that X would take place. Remember, God knowing
does not mean God making it happen, God not only knows that X will happen, He
knows WHY it will happen. So your bold statement can be rewritten as “God gave
us free will means event X is decided by a rational choice as opposed to
physical necessity or chance.” Then the contradiction disappears. [1]



“The Christian god is suppose to be loving and all powerful. This means the
Christian God can stop evil and would stop evil. Yet, we do not see this we see
this God constantly allow children to starve and children to be raped.”

This is the classical problem of evil stated with statistics
about particular evils involving the death of children and so forth. The
problem is this: The argument is certainly powerful and has force, but that
said, many philosophers throughout history have remained unconvinced. This
alone should be EVIDENCE that it is not unreasonable to believe in
Christianity, even if you regard it as ultimately false. There are solutions
put forward to the problem however [2].

The main idea is this: Any evil that happens in the world is
ultimately a result of man being separated from God (result of free choice).
This need not be a direct evil act,
it has to do more with man in general. In any case, God then has a choice, (1)
eradicate the evil or (2) let the evil remain. It is possible however that in
choosing option 2, there is some greater
good
that God can bring out of the evil by (not causing) but allowing the evil to remain. There is no
logical reason that this cannot be
the case. Hence some have abandon the “logical problem of evil” in favor of
other versions.

Now, in order for your argument to work, there has to be no
reason whatsoever that God could allow 2. This would mean that there in
principle could not be a greater good which exists on account of the evil in
the world. There are a number of possibilities put forward by theologians for
what goods God is looking at, but no one reason is necessarily right. The point
is that there is no way to know this is not the case unless we know the mind of
God, the future, what happens after death, etc. all things which we cannot do.
As a result, you may think that it works, but you can’t use it to argue that
the other side is simply unreasonable.



“3. Belief in the Theological Jesus is completely irrational and unreasonable.”



“The theological Jesus is a myth. The key events that lead to the Christian god
did not happen. This ranges from the virgin birth, where we find there are
interesting reasons why the story says he was born of a virgin.”

One scholar adds his interpretation to one Old Testament
passage. This is all sketchy for a number of reasons. First of all, its one
scholar, there are many others. Second of all, even if he is correct, Scripture
scholars have long understood that passages have multiple meanings (so it could
be both a woman in Isaiah’s time AND Jesus).

“Yet, it is really
the resurrection that is key, to maintain the Christian God…”

This entirely misses the point of the Resurrection. If this
kind of thing regularly occurred, then it wouldn’t be a MIRACLE. If the resurrection
did occur, we shouldn’t expect it to happen regularly OR in accordance with
modern science. The appeal to what we know “based on science” is a smokescreen
that makes it look like faith is
unreasonable however is entirely irrelevant. No Christian ever would claim that
the brain would be functional after
hours…as this is absurd and would
render Christ’s resurrection meaningless. The very point is that Christ was
really dead, there are no records of resurrections, and yes, it would be
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE were it not for the suspension of the laws of nature.
This is why Christians appeal to the resurrection, it provides (if it did
occur) evidence for Divine power.

“ The common retort
to this is the resurrection is not unlikely with god…”

There is no way to calculate the probability of Christ
rising. If God does not exist, it is absolutely impossible. If God does exist,
it is certainly within His power…it is not some very difficult thing, it is
something God can do on the power of His will.

There is no data being compiled making a resurrection unlikely,
at least the data you reference makes no sense. The data you reference has to
do with the likelihood of a resurrection according to the laws of nature, which
I agree, as any Christian would, is impossible. The point is that it is
supposedly a miracle hence that data
only reinforces the claim that if a resurrection happened, it was on
account of Divine Power.

“ As Philosopher
Matthew McCormick points out in his book”



Simply because one philosopher says something, doesn’t mean
much. Philosopher William Lane Craig argues in a popular article on the Resurrection
[3
]: “Even Gert L¸demann, the leading German critic
of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain
that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus
appeared to them as the risen Christ.”



So this serves to
show that philosophers often disagree. Philosophers are reasonable people and
have different interpretations of events. Others have argued for this
conclusion as well [4].

As the link points
out, there are actually good reasons to believe in the resurrection purely
because of its historical consequences, not simply because of Gospel testimony.



“4. The Lack of Evidence for God is
Evidence of absence.”

Prayer studies are notorious for having built in problems.
There are hidden variables, for instance, the sincerity of prayers being
offered and the prayers being offered by people not in the specified group. How
do you ensure that someone is not prayed for? This is impossible. In any case,
according to a Christian, prayer is to be offered like Christ did “let it be
your will not mine.” So Christians admit that the primary purpose of prayer is
union with God, not the specific blessing which God may or may not chose to
give.



1
http://www.carroll.edu...
(just an example)

2 http://www.catholic.com...

3 http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

4 http://www.philvaz.com...
for a list of articles

Debate Round No. 2
bebil10

Con

My opponent has said there is no such thing as the Christian god per say, well he is defending the god of Christianity not the god of Islam. While evolving from the same stories, these gods are distinctively different. As for his arguments:

1.A belief is rational if rational people believe it.

Simply no it is not. You could list a bunch of otherwise rational people who believe in Bigfoot, yet their belief in Bigfoot is not rational, the same with aliens and many more irrational claims. This statement is simply nonsequitor.

2.Belief is rational if it has parsimonious explanatory value of facts in our world.

Again simply no, just because their isn't something we don't know and we can make up a constant that could explain it doesn't mean its rational to believe it. An angry Bigfoot could explain why my garage was trashed last night, but is it reasonable to believe that, nope, this simply is not enough to make it reasonable to believe something. You must demonstrate why this is most likely the the right explanation.

As for fine tuning, it could point to any god if it were really an indicator, but in reality it is not. In any vast universe we should expect there to be certain things that are unlikely. There is no reason to believe that this leads to the conclusion that it was created for us. Such a vast universe and a Christian believes that it was created for people who make up such a tiny spec of it. That my friends is the opposite of reasonable. Its completely unreasonable.

Morality make far less sense in the Christian worldview. An all powerful all loving god could have morality so much better understood. Yet, what do we get, a system that looks a whole lot more like people trying to figure out which actions benefit society and help our survival. Even my opponent knows this, since after all he knows that at the very least he if a little child was about to get run over by a car, he certainly knows he doesn't do it because God says so or because he cares about the child's well being( a product of evolution, as we are a social species). He would certainly have to admit that benefiting society would be as good if not a better reason to save the child then simply god said so, especially since the god he is referring to was involved in 2 child sacrifice schemes, Jepthah and Abraham.

3. A belief is rational if it can explain deep mysterious of human existence and serve as a compass in life

If materialism is true.... Sounds like my opponent is arguing here that he doesn't want it to all end so therefore belief in resurrection and more is reasonable this is nonsense. I don't want to believe I'm poor so therefore it is reasonable for me to believe there is a stash of a million dollars buried in my backyard. Is that reasonable, nope, same reason here.

While I would contend Christian societies are better on a whole, I will not do that here, what I do contend is that my opponent may not know what it means to be in accordance to logic if he thinks a argument from utility clearly a logical fallacy is reasonable. This simply means that we may want to adopt some of the Christian precepts to run our societies, it does not mean that we ought to believe in the supernatural claims of the religion.

4. A belief is rational if there are rational arguments for its truth

Here we go my opponent has finally made a statement that is actually true.

Yet at the the end of the day his argument basically gets to any god. I could take time to refute that argument but it would waste space since even if we accept it is true, we would still be unreasonable to believe in the Christian god since that argument could easily be used for thousands if not millions of other gods. Therefore we are left just picking one of the thousands of possible choices and just assuming we are right, that sounds just about as reasonable as me guaranteeing I will win at a roulette table 3 straight times by putting my money down on 3 the first roll, 28 the second roll, 12 the third roll. It could happen, but because its so statistically unlikely based on the current data its completely unreasonable to believe it actually will.

5. A belief is rational if the opposing view has serious flaws

Here he is using a false dilemma. It is quite that simple. It is not materialism or Christianity, there are many other worldviews to consider so this entire point is flawed. Its a very typical mistake when people are holding unreasonable beliefs its a form of logic called Reductio Ad Absurdum, reduction to absurdity, which is valid if and only if there are 2 options. It is not in accordance with logic if you use it when there are many worldviews and attempt to only disprove 1. So while I disagree with his claims about the universe, this cannot make it reasonable to believe in the Christian god so therefore no need to disprove those irrelevant claims.

As for his rebuttals to my arguments:

free will-the ability to choose how to act (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
See the problem my opponent doesn't get as many don't is that the relationship I am referring to is not of causation, but of entailment. If god knows X will happen it entails that the universe is set up in such a way that X will happen. There simply is no way to reconcile this, because lets say God knows I will call out late to work on June 30, 2014 at 9:43 am. He has always known this. At which point did I freely choice to do this? If I freely chose to do this, what other choose did I have but to do this, that wouldn't have completely falsified the statement that God knew I would. You guessed it. None. Thats the point God knowing the future, means the future is predetermined and this cannot be reconciled by saying god is outside of time, since it would still mean everything is predetermined as god simply would exist at all points of the linear timeline. My opponent could say well god knows all possible options, but that is not within the definition of the God we are discussing as this god would know which world would actualize, not just the possible options, and with that said there is only one actualized world option and hence no choice.

Now for the problem of Evil. My opponent must not only say that there is a possibility, because as we have seen believing in things that are just merely possible is not reasonable, he must say its very probable.

Now I ask my opponent this question:

If your god exists then the most loving choice in every single child rape and every single child murder and every single child starvation was to sit there and let it happen.

This is inescapable based on Christianity, I want to know, how likely you believe that is true? Is this really probable.

Also if a police officer ignored any of this would it be reasonable to believe that there was a greater good in any single instance? No, didn't think so, why believe it for God on every single instance.

Now onto his resurrection response. He has not defended the resurrection as having actually happened which to be show it was reasonable he really ought to have done. Instead he appealed to a miracle, which by definition believing in miracles is believing in the least likely event. This is not reasonable. It is the very opposite of being in accordance to logic. Again my opponent has conceded being reasonable instead opting for faith which is not based on logic or reason.

As for my data, I pointed out earlier this was not an option to say my data is based on nature, since after all my data is just as valid with god, because if god exists he presumably could have resurrected any body, so we know it is highly unlikely he would choice to do so based on the same data.

He never even addressed my argument he actually just tries appeal to authority, which was irrelevant to the actual argument about the resurrection vs Salem witches so that argument stands.

More in my closing statements.
Dmot

Pro

Dmot forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
bebil10

Con

I'm sorry to see my opponent forfeited his last round. With that said we have seen that the God of Christianity is not reasonable. We have seen that through conflicts with this Gods characteristics such as the contradiction between granting free will and being omniscient. We have also seen it with conflicts between God and the universe we observe. Whether this be the problem of excessive evil, or what is claimed of this god and what actually happens like in the case of prayer, where we have a god who is claimed to be able to do anything through prayer:

John 14: 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Matthew 17:20 He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, "Move from here to there," and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Matthew 21:21-22 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."

Matthew 18:19-20 Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.

Mark 11:24-25 Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours.

Luke 11:9-13 And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

Who is also suppose to be able to heal the sick:

Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. (James 5:14"15)

Yet we saw in a double blind prayer study this simply is not the case, we also have examples like Kara Neumann a girl who died because her parents chose to follow this God's advice and take prayer over medicine. (http://www.nytimes.com...)

My opponent has failed to show any real reasonable arguments for the existence of God and in the one case where he was actually talking about the Christian god, and not trying to smuggle in a generic god, that goes with any god, he admitted that the resurrection was highly improbable, yet you still need to believe it, the complete and utter lack of being reasonable. That is just one example of where my opponent failed in his arguments.

Speaking of which with the resurrection, he completely left the argument that there is more evidence for witches in Salem then there is for the resurrection untouched, instead choosing to state, as if it were somehow a relevant defeater, that its only one philosopher and they disagree. The argument didn't depend on the philosopher, the point was either valid or not, and he didn't address the point. Leaving yet another example of how even attempting to defend the Christian faith cannot be reasonable.

At the end of the day all variations of arguments for the Christian god Design, Cosmological, Ontological, Transcendental, all have been defeated over the years by philosophy, leaving my opponent in a position of faith, and not reason.

Thanks vote Con
Dmot

Pro

Dmot forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Dmot 2 years ago
Dmot
@Empiren

1) There is nothing wrong with appealing to authority per se. It is only unwise as an absolute grounds for truth.
However, if you understand the argument, I am not arguing for the truth of Christianity, only that it is reasonable. Hence, I think it is perfectly acceptable to appeal to reasonable people in defense of the idea that a belief is reasonable.

2) This was meant only as a sketch to demonstrate the point that there are arguments for God that have stood the test of time that aren't easily dismissed, demonstrating the view is reasonable. i could provide links to a more robust defense if you would like to the argument.

Second, what are you even talking about saying its not based on rationality? Pre-existing views aren't irrational. Further, I gave a sketch as to why I hold these things, you only say that its not based on rationality, don't just assert a stance, argue for it in some fashion at least. I understand this is only a comment box, but at least say where the argument might go wrong rather than simply saying its irrational.

3) True free will isn't directly related, but Con brought it up as well. Also, it is relevant in the sense that it relates to a Christian/materialist worldview question. My point was to show that the alternative to theism has built in problems, making theism more plausible thus providing evidence for my point.

Also, the systems being from minds I wasn't making a specific design argument. Only pointing out that the alternative--atheism-- has some difficulties explaining the world and that fact alone provides evidence for the rationality behind Christianity and theism EVEN IF it turns out that this view is false. Again, there are limited characters we can use, so its only meant as a sketch to point towards rationality, not a knock-down proof for Christianity. you seem to miss that
Posted by Dmot 2 years ago
Dmot
@Empiren

1) There is nothing wrong with appealing to authority per se. It is only unwise as an absolute grounds for truth.
However, if you understand the argument, I am not arguing for the truth of Christianity, only that it is reasonable. Hence, I think it is perfectly acceptable to appeal to reasonable people in defense of the idea that a belief is reasonable.

2) This was meant only as a sketch to demonstrate the point that there are arguments for God that have stood the test of time that aren't easily dismissed, demonstrating the view is reasonable. i could provide links to a more robust defense if you would like to the argument.

Second, what are you even talking about saying its not based on rationality? Pre-existing views aren't irrational. Further, I gave a sketch as to why I hold these things, you only say that its not based on rationality, don't just assert a stance, argue for it in some fashion at least. I understand this is only a comment box, but at least say where the argument might go wrong rather than simply saying its irrational.

3) True free will isn't directly related, but Con brought it up as well. Also, it is relevant in the sense that it relates to a Christian/materialist worldview question. My point was to show that the alternative to theism has built in problems, making theism more plausible thus providing evidence for my point.

Also, the systems being from minds I wasn't making a specific design argument. Only pointing out that the alternative--atheism-- has some difficulties explaining the world and that fact alone provides evidence for the rationality behind Christianity and theism EVEN IF it turns out that this view is false. Again, there are limited characters we can use, so its only meant as a sketch to point towards rationality, not a knock-down proof for Christianity. you seem to miss that
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Pro:
1. A belief is rational if rational people believe in it
Isn't that an argument from authority fallacy?

On number 4.
The argument of a god or "creator" is not based upon rationality, but assumption based on pre-existing views.

On number 5. "opposing views".
-Argument for "free will" is an entirely different debate.
-Argument for the "sytems"(physics) being from a mind is based on prexisting views and is not supported by evidence.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
bebil10DmotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF