The Christian god exists

Thanks, Jerry!!The Axiological Argument: Pro’s definition of “personal god” leaves him falling well short of the god proclaimed in the Bible. A “rational, self-conscious, volitional being” and a being which is available for a personal relationship with any human (as Jesus is claimed to be) or who has been revealed to mankind are not synonymous. Additionally, he explicitly states the being he argues for might not “have personal contact with the governed or to be known by name” This is an admission the “Axiological argument” is not specifically arguing for the god of the Bible. As I stated last round, “if Pro were to prove a god by these argument we would not know which god he had proved”. This should be viewed as a concession by Pro on this point. Should the reader agree with my appraisal, then the rest of my response under this heading may be skipped. Premises - Pro is misrepresenting my argument by claiming I am advocating a subjective morality. Evolution provides the necessary framework for determining what is good. Instead of ‘good’ being defined as some mysterious supernatural quality, ‘good’ becomes identical to certain natural states. With this view ‘good’ can be determined empirically, rather than by intuition, and as such, is objective. Incidentally, the barbaric Biblical values mentioned last round can be shown to decrease well-being, and it is through this type of realizations that we are moving away from these things rather than by the whim of a transcendental being. Slavery and rape-marriage is a degradation of humanity (Pro conceded the ‘son stoning’ with no argumentation of his own, and his source was literally defending against my interpretation with “Yes, but”. Not to mention, I already attacked this source for anonymity in rnd2) For what it’s worth, Pro’s narrative of the ‘slaves were treated as family’ and were to be released after 6 years is only true for Israelite slaves. Non Israelite slaves could be beaten, so long as they didn’t die within a couple of days (Exodus 21:20-21), and kept for life and willed to children as property (Leviticus 25:44-46). Moving on – My opponent suggests a morality which could be wrong is not objective (I’m not sure how he avoids this objection himself considering the problematic Biblical values already mentioned). However, he is making the assumption that objective morality is equivalent to absolute morality. Objective morality is simply a method for determining right and wrong without being dependent on opinion. Pro also questions how we have any responsibilities under ethical naturalism – Reciprocity, for one. If individuals wish to benefit from society, then they’re going to need to contribute to it in some way. Reciprocity increases societal cohesion, and societal cohesion increases the overall well-being of the group. Finally, Pro has given no defense against, or an explanation for, proto-morality as demonstrated in the prosocial experiments. These experiments support a natural morality built on characteristics derived from an objective source (our shared evolutionary heritage). The Teleological Argument: The teleological argument could be used to argue for any number of gods. It is just as reasonable to say it argues for Zamba [1] just as much as it argues for Jesus, which is to say – not reasonable at all. Pro claims “natural is complex” and I think this is meant to propose that the complexity of our universe suggests a creator, but this is simply an unsupported assertion. To establish this I could ask,” what level of complexity demands a designer and how was this determined?” The answer would be arbitrary. We could look at this in another way. It stands to reason that designers are much more complex than their designs. If complexity demands a designer then who or what designed the designer? The Cosmological Argument: I realize this is repetitive, but this argument is irrelevant to the Christian god since it could be also used to argue for other gods. If the argument is not specifically arguing for the deity of the Bible, then it does nothing to build up Pro’s case. Additionally, it seems he views arguments for god similar to Legos and he can build whatever god he arbitrarily desires by stacking them together. However, each argument petitions for a limited set of characteristics. It is a non sequitur to claim the cause of the cosmological argument is also a moral lawgiver and/or designer, or that the designer is also a moral lawgiver, etc. etc. The premises from one argument does not carry over to other arguments. Jerry claims the physical vacuum is the cause of virtual particles, but this is like saying water is the cause of waves. It is a nonsensical answer. The truth is we don’t know what causes virtual particles. We only know that they exist. The same can be said for an unstable nucleus emitting radiation. There is no known cause. So to say that “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is not something we can claim with certainty. The Existence of Jesus: Pro argues that the evidence supports William Lane Craig so, essentially, objectivity is unimportant. I assume the stories of the resurrection in the Bible are the evidence Pro speaks of (Pro hasn’t presented any arguments of WLC about the resurrection). This is the problem that I mentioned in my very first round of argumentation. The claim of the resurrection being submitted as evidence of the resurrection is circular. Assuming John is an eye-witness account (assumed for the sake of the argument), there are no other eye witness accounts to corroborate it within the Bible. The synoptic Gospels are not eye witness accounts (explained below). So, the Bible cannot provide evidence for the resurrection because it is the claim of the resurrection, and your conclusion can not be built into your premise. In summary, there has been no evidence submitted for the resurrection, only claims of it, and without evidence Pro's case has no teeth and his preferred advocate (WLC) without objectivity has no credibility. Pro asserts the synoptic Gospels are of eyewitnesses, and “anyone who says otherwise hasn’t read them”. Bart Erhman is a New Testament scholar and I think it is safe to say he has read the Gospels many times. Yet he concludes the gospels are not eyewitness accounts. [2] The same can be said for Robert Kysar, Raymond Brown, Jonathan Bernier, and most New Testament scholars as explained by Matthew Ferguson:The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels — Matthew the tax collector, Mark the attendant of Peter, Luke the attendant of Paul, and John the son of Zebedee — are doubted among the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars. However, the public is often not familiar with the complex reasons and methodology that scholars use to reach definitive and well-supported consensuses about critical issues, such as assessing the authorial traditions for ancient texts. [3] “Why would people who didn't know Jesus be better than the people who did know him or be better than the people who knew people who knew Jesus?” This is a very good question. Let’s say, hypothetically, you’re accused of murder. You have two witnesses that can verify your alibi, but you can only choose one. The first is a neighbor you don’t really know who can verify you were arguing loudly with your girlfriend at home. The second is your now ex-girlfriend you were arguing with because of your infidelity. (She hates your guts). The neighbor is more likely to stick to the facts because he has neutral feelings for you. He is a disinterested witness. Your ex, on the other hand, might get you sent to prison by not sticking to the facts! The neighbor is a more credible witness even though your ex knows you much better. This works in reverse too. The disinterested witnesses, i.e. the contemporaries of Jesus who were not followers, have nothing to gain by embellishing the facts. The disciples of Jesus are the ‘anti ex-girlfriend’, if you will. They are passionate about Jesus, and they are more likely to embellish the events. Conclusion: The axiological, teleological, and cosmological arguments do not argue for any revealed god. In fact, at most, they argue for a deistic god. As far as Pro’s final argument, he has left it utterly unsupported with poor sources and no evidence. What’s worse is that he hasn’t really provided me much in the way of his own words to refute. In conclusion, the full burden is on Pro and he has not bore it. I asked Pro to present any and all arguments he had in round 3, but he declined. Keep in mind that I will not have the opportunity to rebut any new arguments by Pro, and I feel they should be discounted. Also, since Pro has the burden, he will need to do more than address my objections – he will need to overcome them. If the voters feel Pro and I have made equally compelling cases, then I get the win due to Pro’s burden. Pro must make a better case to win. That being said, I wish Pro the best of luck and send this back over to him! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...(god) [2] http://ehrmanblog.org... [3] https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com...