Theism (Pro) vs. Naturalism (Con)

The supernatural Con said that even if the prophecies and the ressurection did happen, we should choose a natural explanation. However, there are no natural explanations for foreseeing the future. The only natural explanation presently available is that the prophecies didn’t happen but were really written after the event. Resurrecting from the dead violates the scientific law of biogenesis, explained in Round 2. We only can argue from what we now know. Otherwise, the debate will end in a tie. With this method, I could debunk your second premise of the skeptic’s cosmological argument (i.e., that the Universe couldn’t have been created) by saying, “Even though Belshazzar was thought to have been made up, it was shown to be true and therefore not false. The seeming lack of knowledge of the event is not evidence of forgery.” No, I'm going to answer the argument. Cosmological argument The fourth defense Con says that I’ve ignored his fourth defense of the premise that God could not have created the Universe if He is timeless. However, my movie reel rebuttal did deal with it. What’s going on, though, is that we’re now discussing two different times. There can be a “before time” with our original definition, as there could be “time” (in the broader sense) before “time” (the creation of the Universe). If we are to move to the broader sense of time, then the problem would be that Con has failed to show that God created time; he only demonstrated that God created the Universe. How does Con know that the beginning of the Universe “would’ve been inch one on a ruler” and not, for example, inch three? In fact, “many … cosmologists have begun to consider the possibility of time before the [Universe’s beginning], as well as alternative theories of how our universe came to be.”[1] If Con should quote, for example, William Lane Craig, he was saying that, if true, eternalism attacks the theist’s Kalām cosmological argument by making the Universe possibly on inch one of a ruler. Eternalism doesn’t, however, support the skeptic’s cosmological argument by making the Universe definitely on inch one, as the Universe could have come later—for example, on inch three. And quoting Titus 1:2 presents two problems: 1) The epistle obviously uses time in a way that permits there to be a “before time began.” 2) Even if what’s said in Titus 1:2 were false, which hasn't been done, it would only show the Epistle to Titus to be incorrect, not God existing. Omniscience Let’s assume for the sake of argument that knowing the time in which something happens means it exists eternally, like Con says. Then the time in which Con created his Round 4 debate post would exist eternally. Yet, Con wouldn’t deny that he created the Round 4 debate post above. If Con’s creation of the debate post can happen although the time in which it happened is eternal, why can’t God’s creation of the Universe happen although the time in which it happened is eternal? Con must assume that the creation of the Universe is interchangeable with the creation of time (in the broad sense) for this argument to stand as well. Prophecy Con claims that in the 6th century B.C., adding 16–27 chapters to a book could go unnoticed because “we are hardly in the same contextual situations as 6th century BCE.” Yet Con didn’t really explain how this follows. Do you believe that the Jews, who would have had the 39-chapter Book of Isaiah for at least a century and a half, would be completely oblivious after one of them got one with 16–27 extra chapters because of the “scholarly situations” of the time, Con? Con says that Ezra-Nehemiah was split “due to differences in literary style. Something Pro believes is ‘subjective and/or inconsistent.’” The reason I know the Book of Nehemiah was written by Nehemiah is because it says so (Neh. 1:1). It does not say so with Isaiah. Also, how come the ones who split Ezra-Nehemiah didn’t split Isaiah? While Con said that literary style sets people apart, I think he’s making too much of the source he gave to conclude such. Forbes, for example, gives a list of habits “That Set Ultra Successful People Apart.”[2] Yet, someone could have all the habits listed without being “Ultra Successful.” Also, there is an article by the preacher Steven J. Wallace titled Away From The Manger.[3] It’s poetry, but every single other writing he’s made is not poetry. It says it was written by “Steven J. Wallace” (like the Book of Isaiah credits the entirety to “Isaiah the son of Amoz” [1:1] without making distinctions) and he’s the traditional author, but such may just be an appeal to tradition. In reality, it doesn’t follow his literary style. Yet surely you are not going to deny he wrote the article, are you? Con argues that “since the scrolls they copied from are lost, there is no way to know how old their Isaiah manuscript was and therefore no way to show Pro’s point.” Although we don’t have the manuscripts, they had them. While this applies for Isaiah, it really is so for Daniel, our earliest manuscript evidence being only 40 years after the date higher critics give for the original. The source Con gave in regards to post-exilic idol worship said that “the Jews were thoroughly weaned from all belief in idols, although superstition itself can never be wholly eradicated.” Isaiah’s period, however, one in which the people were “Inflaming [themselves] with gods under every green tree” (57:3). While the post-exilic writings don’t deal with idolatry, Isaiah deals with it extensively—even after Chapter 39—discussing it in 45:5–8, 16; 46:1–4; 48:5; 57:13, etc. It is false that I gave no justification for our oldest manuscript evidence of Daniel being 2,140 years old. Con said that “our earliest manuscripts date to 125 BCE.” Rounding to the nearest ten, this would be 2,140 years ago. Also, my source showed that the time scholars claim Daniel was written was only 40 years earlier, in approximately 164 B.C.![4] So the solid, physical evidence is on the side of the early-daters, while only subjective arguments can be used against it. Vote Pro! Con says I quoted John Whitcomb as an authority to show “that Daniel wasn’t in the Hebrew Canon due to personal bias.” A better argument I could have used, however, is that again, the argument is inconsistent; the Book of Job, for example, is also in the Writings, yet this doesn’t mean it was written after 200 B.C.[7] In reality, that eight fragmentary copies of the Book of Daniel (two dating to the second century B.C.)[8][9] were found at Qumran supports its understanding as being sacred during this time. If it’s just a hazy book purporting at places to be written centuries before it really was, how did it become so popular and receive so many copies that eight fragmentary manuscripts were found at Qumran? In Round 3, Con said that “perhaps the best reason to accept later dates is because it fits with our abductive reasoning” (emphasis mine). This is true;[10] I think we agree that if they didn’t speak accurately of events to come, the accepted dates of the books wouldn’t have been changed. To answer this argument, I said that it is subjective because Isaiah 13 has similar prophecy at least 148 years before being fulfilled, and yet its date wasn’t changed. The only objection Con raised was that the prophecy supposedly was not fulfilled, because the Persians, not Medes, defeated Babylon. The source Con gave said “Persia,” but it also is called Medo-Persia. Why? Everyone agrees that the account of Daniel 8 is accurate. However, it says that Greece would destroy Media and Persia (Dan. 8:20). However, Greece didn’t destroy Media; it only destroyed Persia. “Media and Persia” therefore refer to the Medo-Persian Empire, so the Empire also can be called Media, or it can be called Persia. For example, we can say, “The ram and he-goat [in Daniel 8] are interpreted explicitly as the kings of Persia [technically Medo-Persia] and Greece”[11] (emphasis added). In the same way, Isaiah knew and said explicitly that Media (technically Medo-Persia) would destroy Babylon! Con’s only objection to my rebuttal of his strongest argument falls like Babylon! Resurrection Con’s last round in which I could follow up, has passed without Con attempting to come up with a more plausible theory than that Jesus resurrected. Con claims he doesn’t have too, because if evidence was lacking and he made an absurd theory about how Julius Caesar died, we should just reject it immediately. Actually, if Con made an absurd theory and no more plausible theory would explain what we know, then we would need to accept the theory. For example, there is no simple theory as to how life began, so people come up with many different ideas. If there were a simple theory that would explain all we know, then we could reject all the existing theories. In Round 2 I gave some evidence and said that the only explanation we can come up with that explains the evidence is that he did rise. It is agreed that Paul, formerly a practitioner of Judaism, “had [a] vision of Jesus” and “came to believe in him”[12] and that people had group visions, seeing Jesus.[13][14] What natural theory can account for this information? If the resurrection is so absurd, how come Con was unable to bring up a single alternative possibility? Con claimed I’m inconsistent for believing 500 witnesses of Jesus’ appearances but not believing the “671 devotees” of Jim Jones. Actually, I will grant that he did something that in some way “healed” people. The question is, what theory should we use? Should we conclude that 1) Jones has supernatural power or 2) “he used manipulative but ultimately transparent methods to give temporary comfort to the susceptible and to draw in the vulnerable.” I’ll go with the second one, as it explains the evidence and is more plausible. For the resurrection, we (or should I say “I”) presented two theories: 1) Jesus resurrected and 2) the disciples experienced hallucinations. Only the first was ever defended.