No current religion is the best guide for being a moral person in the 21st Century.

One of the biggest dilemmas Christians face today is that modern thinking has descended to the belief that if you can't prove a thing scientifically, it can't be true. We all accept as true many facts that cannot be verified by scientific methods. We cannot scientifically prove anything about any person or event in history, but that doesn't mean that proof is impossible. The difference here is between scientific proof and legal historical proof. Scientific Proof is based on showing that something is a fact by repeating the event in the presence of the person questioning the fact. It is done in a controlled environment where observations can be made, data drawn, and hypothesis empirically verified. The scientific method is related to measurement of phenomena and experimentation or repeated observation. If the scientific method were the only method we had for proving facts, you couldn't prove that you watched television last night or that you had lunch today. There's no way you could repeat those events in a controlled situation. The other method of proof, the legal-historical proof, is based on showing that something is a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words we reach a verdict based on the evidence and have no rational basis for doubting the decision. Legal-Historical proof depends on three kinds of testimony: oral testimony, written testimony, and exhibits (such as a gun, bullet, notebook, or diagram). Using the legal-historical method to determine the facts, you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you went to lunch today. Your friends saw you there, the waiter remembers seeing you, and you have the restaurant receipt. The scientific method can be used to prove only repeatable things. It isn't adequate for proving or disproving questions about persons or events in history. To uncover the answers for the evidence of Christianity, the validity of the Bible, and to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God only the legal-historical method will work. Then the primary question becomes this: Can we trust the reliability of the testimonies and the evidences? When the Bible is put through the same rigorous criteria that we apply to all historical documents, it passes with flying colors. The three basic principles of historiography are the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test. In regards to the bibliographical test, which determines that the text we have now is what was originally recorded, we discover that, more than twenty thousand copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence as of 2004. The Iliad, which is second to the New Testament in manuscript authority, has only 643 manuscripts in existence. Jewish scholar Jacob Klausner says, "If we had ancient sources like those in the Gospels for the history of Alexander and Caesar, we should not cast any doubt upon them whatsoever". When it comes to manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is truly remarkable in contrast to the manuscript availability of other classic texts. The internal evidence test is used to determine to what extent the written record is credible. The ability for the eyewitnesses to give an accurate account of events is closely related to their nearness both geographically and chronologically to the events recorded. The accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus were recorded by men who had been either eyewitnesses themselves or who related the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events or teachings of Christ. What this means is the writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news," the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection. Historian Will Durant who has trained in the discipline of historical investigation and spent his life analyzing records of antiquity, writes: "Despite the prejudices and theological misconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrests, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty and ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels" . The external evidence test determines whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents themselves. In other words, what sources, apart from the literature under analysis, substantiate the document's accuracy, reliability, and authenticity? Research uncovers, "two friends and disciples of the apostle John confirm the internal evidence that appears in John's accounts. The first was Papias, bishop of Hierapolos. The second friend of John was one of his disciples, Polycarp, who became the Bishop of Smyrna and had been a Christian for eighty six years. Polycarp's student Irenaeus, later bishop of Lyons (A.D. 180) wrote what he learned from Polycarp: "Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews (i.e. Jews) in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there". We can clearly see that when the Bible was put through the rigorous criteria that is applied to all historical documents, specifically the three basic principles of historiography which are the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test. The Bible confidently passed all three tests and was more attested by ancient manuscripts than any other piece of ancient literature. After we put the documented historical evidence through the historiography gauntlet we then ask the following question of the disciples? Who would die for a lie? We can trust the apostles' testimonies because eleven of those men died martyrs' deaths because they stood solid for two truths: Christ's deity and His resurrection. Peter, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, James & Simon were all crucified. Matthew & James (son of Zebedee) were killed by the sword. Thomas was killed by a spear. Thaddaeus was killed by arrows. John died a natural death. The Apostle Paul also died a martyr. So 1 out of the 12 closest followers and disciples of Jesus died a natural death and the rest died an extremely violent death. Common sense tells us that if these were the death statistics for hanging out with or preaching about Jesus then one would have to realize without a shadow of a doubt that these men believed Jesus Christ to be the son of God and were witnesses to His crucifixion, resurrection and then ascension into Heaven. All of the above gives proof to the Bible and Christ being absolutely true and this being said my opponent still has the burden of proof against him and has not been able to prove that no current religion is the best guide where I have been able to show that Christianity is the best guide if lived out like Christ with the proper balance between truth and grace.