Theism (Pro) vs. Naturalism (Con)

IntroductionThank you, Con, advisers, and judges, for this great opportunity to consider a very serious question. I hope that those reading this debate will be able to gather good knowledge as to which view is better. I was originally going to have four arguments for the existence of God, but time and space restraints force me to rely on three. A great argument in favor of the existence of God is the detailed, fulfilled prophecy held in the pages of the Bible. While many Biblical prophecies exist, we will deal with two in this debate. The other argument will be the resurrection of Christ. Cyrus the Great Consider this syllogism: P1. If Isaiah the prophet accurately prophesied an event so precisely that it had to have been done supernaturally, then theism is much more reasonable than naturalism. P2. Isaiah the prophet accurately prophesied an event so precisely that it had to have been done supernaturally. C. Therefore, theism is much more reasonable than naturalism. Isaiah claimed to have been inspired by God and credits his prophecies to Him (Isa. 45:1; 1:1–2; etc.). If Isaiah was able to demonstrate supernatural inspiration, then it would be unreasonable to deny that God exists. The major (first) premise of the above syllogism, therefore, is shown to be correct. Therefore if the minor (second) premise can be shown to be true, then the conclusion must be true, as the syllogism is valid (i.e., constructed in such a way so that if the major and minor premises are true, the conclusion must also be true). Let us consider the second premise, then. Isaiah, speaking with such certainty as if the event already happened (a prophetic style known as the prophetic perfect tense),[1] prophecies by name that a certain Cyrus would “subdue nations before him And loose the armor of kings, To open before him the double doors, So that the gates will not be shut” (Isa. 45:1). God emphasizes how He is calling Cyrus by name in verses 3–4, and says that He is making Cyrus mighty even though he wouldn’t at the time know Him (vv. 4–5). It is also said that Cyrus would have the temple rebuilt (44:28). The book says to be “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” (1:1, emphasis added), placing the vision anywhere between 788–687 B.C.[2] At least 148 years later, in 539 B.C., all this came to pass! A mighty man named Cyrus the Great ended up taking Babylon and freed the Jews,[4] permitting them to rebuild the temple. This is an amazing prophecy! If my opponent chooses to answer this point by using the Deutero-Isaiah or Trito-Isaiah theory, then the burden of proof lies on his shoulders to support it, as such a change in view of the authorship was not significantly held until the 18th century A.D.[3]—approximately 25 centuries after the writing of Isaiah! To put this in perspective, the Founding Fathers of the United States, who lived in almost an entirely different world, signed the Declaration of Independence less than 2½ centuries ago! What reason(s) can be given to suddenly change what’s been understood for 25 centuries? The major and minor premises are shown to be true, and thus the conclusion is as well. The Ram and the Goat P1. If Daniel the prophet accurately prophesied an event so precisely that it had to have been done supernaturally, then theism is much more reasonable than naturalism. P2. Daniel the prophet accurately prophesied an event so precisely that it had to have been done supernaturally. C. Therefore, theism is much more reasonable than naturalism. Daniel was clearly a theist and praised God as One who “reveals deep and secret things; He knows what is in the darkness, And light dwells with Him” (Dan. 2:22). I don’t think this would be in dispute. Therefore, the major premise is shown to be correct. The eighth chapter of the Book of Daniel speaks of a vision that happened “In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar” (v.1), or about 553 B.C. In the vision, Daniel sees a ram with two horns, the higher one being the horn that came up after the first one (v. 3). The ram became great, “pushing westward, northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him; nor was there any that could deliver from his hand” (v. 4). Then, a billy goat suddenly appeared coming “from the west, across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes” (v. 5). The goat charged toward the ram “with furious power” and broke the ram’s two horns (vv. 6–7). The goat was so powerful that no one would be able to stop it from killing the ram (v. 7). The goat continued to grow in strength; eventually, its horn broke and was replaced with four other horns (v. 8). The story continues in verses 9–14. This is a very intriguing prophecy, and interpreting it may seem difficult. Fortunately, we don’t have to just guess its meaning: Daniel himself “was seeking the meaning” of the vision when suddenly someone “having the appearance of a man,” Gabriel, was told to reveal its meaning (vv. 15–16). The ram with two horns is said to represent “the kings of Media and Persia” (v. 20), while the goat represents “the kingdom of Greece” (v. 21). And that notable horn that broke and was replaced with four horns? This is symbolic for Greece diverging into four kingdoms (v. 22). There are more details that could be given regarding this prophecy, but the material presented should be sufficient for this debate. Like with Isaiah’s prophecy, Daniel’s vision also came to pass. Cyrus the Great (mentioned earlier), king of Persia, defeated Media,[5] combining it with Persia. Yet, this Medo-Persian empire was defeated by Alexander the Great, of Greece, in 331 B.C.[6] Later, Alexander the Great died, and Greece diverged "into four major powers."[6] This means that Daniel was foretold not only that the Medo-Persian empire would fall 220 years before it happened but also who would cause its fall—Greece! And not only that: He was foretold that Greece would diverge into four! If Con should claim that the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century B.C., the burden of proof is on him, because the vision dates itself to “the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar” (8:1), or the 6th century B.C.[7] The view that the Book of Daniel was a forgery written in the 2nd century B.C. was not held until Porphyry concocted it in the 3rd [or early 4th?] century A.D.[7][8] Both premises are shown to be true; thus, the conclusion is true. Jesus’ resurrection If the resurrection of Jesus the Christ can be verified, then that would strike a huge blow against naturalism: P1. If Jesus’ resurrection happened, then theism is more reasonable then naturalism. P2. Jesus’ resurrection happened. C. Therefore, theism is more reasonable than naturalism. According to the gospels, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (Matt. 16:13–17; Mark 14:61–62; Luke 2:49; John 56:43; etc.). One convincing way He could show this is if He could resurrect from the dead, obviously. Furthermore, this would be supernatural, and thus would defy naturalism, because it violates the Law of biogenesis (i.e., that life cannot come from inorganic matter—which Jesus’ corpse would have to be after death). The major premise is correct. Now for the minor premise. Paul the apostle, who was previously zealous toward Judaism and opposed to Christianity, reports that he himself became a Christian, saying that it was because he saw Jesus appear to him (Gal. 1:13–24). In one of his epistles to the Corinthians, he writes: “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time” (1 Cor. 15:3–8). The epistle is believed to date to ca. 53–54 A.D. If we interpret Paul saying he “received” this message to mean he received it by God, this would date to no longer than 20 years after Jesus’ crucifixion, as it certainly couldn’t have been after he wrote the epistle that he received this. However, scholars claim that Paul “received” verses 3–7 as a written statement from others about 5 years after Jesus’ death.[9] Either way, I think it is clear that this and other facts need to be explained. How was Jesus seen by the twelve? How was He seen by 500 people? How was He seen by the apostle Paul in such a convincing way that Christians could say of him, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23)? What theories can account for these and everything else we know other than the view that Jesus did, in fact resurrect from the dead? Con will need to provide a satisfactory, more convincing explanation in order for the resurrection argument to be rendered unsound.ConclusionBased on the foregoing, I conclude that the natural realm we live in is not all that there is. Rather, the existence of a divine Creator serves as a much more reasonable explanation of 1) Cyrus' name being mention in the Book of Isaiah, 2) the Book of Daniel's mention that Greece would destroy the Medo-Persians, and 3) the evidence concerning Jesus' resurrection. Thank you.