Biblical God exists.

I must admit, however, that I am slightly confused as to the topic we are to debate; the debate title suggests the existence of God, and yet in Round 1 my opponent focuses almost entirely on Jesus Christ. Given this, I will concern myself with what my opponent has said in Round 1, while leaving the door open to take up the existence of God generally in later rounds. Now, my opponent has offered several distinct theses in his opening argument; that Jesus Christ did in fact exist, that what Christ "said" was in fact true (presumably referring to the teachings of Christ as reported by the Gospels), and that at least some of the events reported in the Gospels, such as Christ's crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, did occur. It should be immediately clear that these claims do not stand or fall together; it could be the case that one or more are true while one or more is false- it is quite possible that Jesus Christ existed but did not rise from the dead, for instance. Now, that someone at least roughly corresponding to the Jesus Christ of the Gospels did in fact exist is without a doubt the least contentious thesis my opponent is arguing, but their first argument for this claim is highly problematic; my opponent claims that "historians cannot find any shred of evidence against Jesus' existence"- a claim which needs to be substantiated if it is to be taken seriously and poses some difficulties of its own- what, exactly, would constitute evidence against a thing or person's existence? Many would consider a lack of (positive) evidence for a person having existed to constitute such evidence, but my opponent's phrasing seems to require positive evidence against Christ's existence. But such evidence seems unattainable even in principle; it would seem to require omniscience, i. e. total knowledge of the universe and everything in it. Thus, asking for evidence against a person's existing is an impossible and thus faulty standard; rather, we need to ask what positive evidence there is for a persons existence. As it happens, there are indeed early sources external to the Bible which speak of Christ- and these sources do in fact constitute some evidence that Jesus Christ did in fact exist. However, we must keep in mind that these sources are not evidence that the rest of the Gospel accounts are true; i. e. that this person raised the dead, walked on water, and so on- for evidence of these events, we must look elsewhere. Now, my opponent advances four distinct arguments for the theses that the events and teachings attributed to Christ in the Gospels are true (which exact teachings or events my opponent has in mind is unspecified, or whether he means all of them); he cites the "faithfulness" of the disciples and their willingness to die, the existence of eyewitness testimony to some of these events (such as the crucifixion/resurrection), and the "explosion" of Christianity in the subsequent centuries following Christ's death. Importantly, all of these arguments are non-sequitur (i. e. the conclusion does not follow) with the exception of the eyewitness reports. We'll consider each of these arguments briefly in turn. "Faithfulness"My opponent cites the disciples' willingness to die, often horrible deaths, for their beliefs as evidence that what they believed was actually true. It shouldn't be too hard to see that this doesn't follow; one can believe something wholeheartedly, sincerely, and be willing to sacrifice one's life for that belief- and yet be mistaken. The fact that someone is willing to die may well be evidence that they think it is true, and are highly confident that it is true, but little more. Consider it this way; is it possible (even common) for someone to believe something, confidently and faithfully (perhaps even be willing to die for them), and yet be wrong? I believe the answer to this question is an obvious "yes"- that someone believes something, and is willing to die for it, does not necessarily imply that that belief is true. The "Explosion" of ChristianityThe argument regarding the "explosion" of the Christian faith is a similar case; it does not establish the desired conclusion, and comes awfully close to being an argumentem ad popularum (i. e. a fallacy); simply because a lot of people adopted Christianity (i. e. believe it is true), doesn't imply that it is true- this is non-sequitur. There is no logical or necessary connection between how quickly a belief or ideology gains popularity, and its truthfulness. Moreover, we have more plausible and parsimonious explanations for the rise of Christianity- historical circumstance. Just as Europe in the wake of the second war proved to have just the right conditions to lead to an explosion in popularity of existentialism, Christianity enjoyed some historical circumstances that proved crucial in the spread of its popularity; its adoption by the Roman Empire, with all of its influence and resources, for one. The fact that Christianity piggy-backed on and associated itself with an existing religion (Judaism) rather than starting from scratch. The fact that Christianity made spreading "the Word" a central point of focus from the very beginning (indeed, there has never been as large a marketing campaign in the history of humankind as Christianity has enjoyed, beginning with Paul). We could go on, but in any case, we can readily explain the "explosion" of Christianity without needing to add any mysterious entities to our ontology (such as Gods, god-men, or Holy Spirits). Eyewitness TestimonyLastly, let's consider the one valid argument my opponent does offer for the truth of the Gospel accounts of Christ; the existence of (purported) eyewitness testimony. If we had eyewitness reports of some event X this would indeed constitute evidence that X had occurred; although importantly, not infallible or conclusive evidence (eyewitness testimony is known to be highly prone to error). Unfortunately, we're not sure we have any eyewitness reports at all, and if we do, we have reasons to doubt their credibility. Most crucially, it is the consensus of contemporary Biblical scholarship that the Gospels were not written by the disciples whose names they bear, but rather are composed from earlier sources, including an unknown source referred to as "Q". The approximate age of the Gospels also makes it highly unlikely that they are authentic documents, in the sense of having been written by the person they were supposedly written by. * Worse, even if there was good reason to suppose that they are eyewitness reports, they don't appear to be credible at all; the various Gospels conflict with one another, both in details and theme, and the authors appear to have taken a great deal of artistic license in their accounts (particularly Luke). Ultimately, whatever evidence the Gospels provide is very weak, and cannot reach the desired conclusion. So this is the situation we are left with; we have some very old documents which provide evidence that there existed a person at least roughly corresponding the character Jesus Christ as described in the Gospels, but no evidence that what the Gospels report him saying or doing ever actually happened, much less that what Christ taught is actually true (i. e. that God exists, that there is a heaven and a hell, and our beliefs about God and about Christ determine which we visit once we die, etc. ). * . http://en.wikipedia.org...