Christianity is Probably False

I will now give my defense. Defense to Rebuttal of Contention 1: Pro seems to believe the Bible is a inferior manuscript, as he states, "Con's only justification for this was either from the bible or a bare assertion. ", therefore claiming the Bible's accuracy and authenticity to be equivalent to bare assertion. The Gospels, (where my reference came from) are the history of Christianity, equal in authenticity to any historical narrative such as Josephus' Antiquities or Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. Luke was most likely a doctor, or a very heavily educated and well-rounded man, and is very detailed in his writings. [1] The only reason his work is discredited is because it is in the Bible, this is obviously illogic and biased. None doubt Josephus or Eusebius, therefore there is no reason to doubt Luke. This second argument is in a completely different ballpark all together. Wizards and aliens are fictional beings, (unless of course you are referring to wizards as magicians) and therefore cannot bring anything back to life. The grammar is very poor, so I am not sure whether you are asserting that the wizard is an alien, or that Jesus was an alien? If you were referring to the second, you can rest assured that Jesus was a human, born of a women, fathered by God. Carrier is doing his research to disprove Christianity, and therefore used more conservative figures. Even if he used the broadest numbers, it is all personal opinion, as he himself states. "The combined odds of survival, misdiagnosis, and escape are thus, in my opinion. .. "[2] Notice, ". .. in my opinion. .. " therefore this is speculation. Defense to Rebuttal of Contention 2: Here Pro contends that if Christianity is the most moral religion, then it does not necessarily follow that it is true. It does not mean that it is not true either, and therefore, it is still a valid argument, unless of course, he could prove that Christianity is not the most moral religion. Hell is not morally questionable. If there is a just God, and He must allow people who follow His plan for salvation, there must be a place of punishment. Anyone can choose to follow His plan, which He has clearly outlined, yet, there must be a place of punishment for those who do not follow it. Yes indeed, Yaweh did indeed order the killing of men women and children. To this I have two defenses: first, the people of the city had heard of Israels fame, and indeed could have turned to their God, and repented, but indeed, they lived in continual evil and immorality. The second contention is that God did the most merciful thing to the children. They were too young to know right and wrong, therefore, He could not justly send them to hell, so when they died, they were able to come to heaven, without having to live through many evils that were to come. Defense to Contention 3: I continue to wonder why the Bible is being assumed false, simply because it is the Bible. Why do we trust Plato's writings, or Darwin's? This is once again illogic. Besides, he never defined what he meant by the contention that the Bible is untrue. Historically? Philosophically? Morally? There are multiple truths which can be used. I am not trying to be semantical, but I am simply stating the fact. Occam's razor would not affect either, because both make one assumption each, either, A) The New Testament was written to accommodate the old, or B) It was not. Both take one assumption, so Occam's razor cannot be validly used. [3] There is no prophecy of a third temple in Ezekiel, only a tabernacle. He also said that his "servant David" would be the one doing it, not the "Son of David". The Isaiah example was not referring to the Christ anywhere, so I am not sure where you drew this conclusion? The Zechariah 14 prophecy claims, "A day is coming. .. ", therefore it is gives room for speculation of a second coming. The reference did not give a source for their, "Jewish sources" so I cannot refute them, because I cannot see their argument. Faulkner is one man, with a right to his opinions. Sadly any attempt at past-telling astronomy is bound to have flaws. Larson's theory is just that, a theory, yet it does have grounds, just as Faulkner has grounds of belief. Conclusion: Pro attempts to discredit the Bible, simply because it is the Bible, therefore ignoring logic. His arguments carry weight, but ultimately not enough. My position is defended. Thank you Pro for a professional, intellectual, and polite debate. [1a] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [1b] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://infidels.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor