The God of Christianity is probably real.

Let me begin by thanking mongeese for accepting my challenge. =============== A proof that God exists: Rebuttal =============== Even if I were to grant the primary claims of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or the hybrid of it my opponent has used, the conclusion would not follow. Who is to say that the only thing that can give rise to space and time is a supreme being? And even if I were to go so far as to say that the universe had to be designed by an intelligent agent it would not follow that this agent was the Biblical God or that it approved of Christianity. The truth of the matter is that no one knows why or how the universe came into being. Nor do we know why something would exist rather than nothing. Scientists and other rational people usually admit their ignorance on this issue; religious people do not. It isn't even clear that we can speak coherently about the creation of the universe because we can only comprehend events with regards to time. My opponent's concepts of common sense are no more valid in his argument with regards to the origins of the universe than they would be if they were applied to Quantum theory. [1] We are too early in our study of cosmology to verify any of the outlandish claims my opponent has put forth. ====== Case Pro- Rebuttals ====== ======== Contention 1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ======== My opponent has demonstrated nothing more than his own credulity and willingness to believe in virtually anything. The only thing that can verify supernatural phenomena is evidence, lots and lots of evidence. The odds that people will be untruthful are always greater than the odds that the laws of nature have been suspended. Mongeese, do you believe everything your parents tell you? And what would you think of your mother if she told you that she flew to Jerusalem on a winged hoarse last weekend? These claims have also been attributed to the prophet Mohammed and are believed by literally millions of Muslims that have faith in his trustworthiness. [2] My opponent doesn't make it explicit, but he alludes to what is commonly known as the argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. [3] The fact that someone may be perceived to be "trustworthy' is not sufficient evidence to establish the truth of miracles. David Hume has written eloquently on the subject of miracles and what follows bellow is a brief summary of his views on miracles taken from his book, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. ======== David Hume: The problem of miracles ======== 1. People often lie, and they have good reasons to lie about miracles occurring either because they believe they are doing so for the benefit of their religion or because of the fame that results. 2. People by nature enjoy relating miracles they have heard without caring for their veracity and thus miracles are easily transmitted even where false. 3. Hume notes that miracles seem to occur mostly in "ignorant" and "barbarous" nations and times, and the reason they don't occur in the "civilized" societies is such societies aren't awed by what they know to be natural events. 4. The miracles of each religion argue against all other religions and their miracles, and so even if a proportion of all reported miracles across the world fit Hume's requirement for belief, the miracles of each religion make the other less likely. [4]-[5] ======== Contention 2: Christian theology is unsupported by evidence. ======== "If only one person believed that the universe exploded into existence from a single point from nothingness, would he not also seem mad?" - mongeese They wouldn't seem mad if they were born in the 20th century because the evidence for such an occurrence is simply overwhelming. Where is the evidence for any of the miracles that Christianity is founded upon? Secondly, Christians seem mad because the core of their belief system is so at odds with modern science. The notion that Jesus had no paternal father is a key doctrine in Christianity and it is also a claim about biology. The claim that Jesus after being raised from the dead arose bodily into heaven is another key dogma in the Christian religion that once again overtly trespasses upon the territory of science. This story involves a variety of claims about history, the human survival of death, and apparently the mechanics of flight without the aid of technology. Indeed if a reconciliation between science and Christian theism were to take place it would mean that we would have to square the laws of biology, chemistry, physics, history and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a torrent of iron age convictions. ======== Contention 3: Hearsay is insufficient evidence to validate the truth of miracles. ======== Consider the foundational claim of Christianity as though for the first time. The claim is this: that miracle stories like those that now surround many schizophrenics, lunatics, con artists, and charlatans like Joseph Smith are especially compelling when you put them inside ancient texts from the prescientific religious milieu of the first century Roman Empire decades after they had supposedly occurred. Ask yourself which is more probable; that the laws of nature have been suspended, in your favor no less, or that you are mistaken. ======== Contention 4: Religion is the language of ignorance. ======== My opponent seems to be hinting at his desire to shift the burden of proof but he hasn't done this quite yet so I won't fault him for it. He seems to want evidence from me that the Christian God is indeed fictitious. Is this a reasonable demand? Not really. As many students of philosophy will know Bertrand Russell closed the door to this line of thinking for all time with his famous celestial teapot argument. [6] Can any of us prove that there is not a celestial teapot in elliptical orbit around the sun at this moment? No. Does this make it reasonable to believe in the existence of such a teapot? No. Is it reasonable to be agnostic about the existence of such a teapot? Not quite. (Argument Over) It should be obvious that the burden is not upon the atheist to disprove the existence of celestial teapots. ========= Conclusion ========= Even if I were go so far as to grant that my opponent's argument for the existence of God was valid he would still have all of his work ahead of him. How to do you go from a creator god to a God that can answer prayers, forgive sins, perform miracles, and takes a special interest in human affairs? To say that my antagonist has failed at this would be an understatement. Aquinas couldn't fill this gap and neither can my opponent. All the best, Freeman ======= Sources ======= [1] http://www.thebigview.com... [2] http://www.allaboutturkey.com...... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] Hume, D (1748), 'Of miracles‘, in Enquiry concerning human understanding, LA Selby-Bigge (ed.), 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, (1902), Section X, pp.116-122. [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.philosophyblog.com.au...