Theism (Pro) vs. Naturalism (Con)

Thanks Pro! Rebuttals Pro uses three historical arguments. Unfortunately, Pro never demonstrates the second half of his premises. He asserts that these events are supernatural, without showing this is the best explanation. Even if I were to grant that the authors of the listed prophecies really did predict these events and even if I were to grant that Jesus really did rise from the grave, I still have no reason for accepting that the supernatural was responsible. I will express why in this syllogism. P1: If naturalistic explanations have been superior to supernatural explanations overall, then we ought to prefer a naturalistic explanation in the face of an unexplained event. P2: Naturalistic explanations have been superior to supernatural explanations. P3: The aforementioned prophecies and resurrection are unexplained events C: Therefore, we ought to prefer naturalistic explanations. If you knew someone who lied to everyone 9/10 times and one day he told you that he met the president, are you justified in not believing him? Of course, because he’s a pathological liar it is likely that he is lying. Likewise, if we have a ton of cases where the supernatural fails to adequately explain nature, are we justified in believing a supernatural event occurred? It doesn’t seem so. Therefore, P1 is justified. Looking back at past cases of the supernatural, not one of them have been shown to be veridical in explaining reality. The role of Thor was better explained by electrostatic discharge caused by wind updrafts and downdrafts. The role of demons was better explained by germs and so on. So if we have some seemingly supernatural explanation, it is likely that there is another better explanation because this has been the case with all others. What makes these events prove the supernatural and not something crazy such as aliens guiding our species, brains which are displaced in time, or the actual existence of psychohistory? Just because the people believe the event is supernatural doesn't make it so. For example, in the Star Trek episode “Devil's Due” the Enterprise uncovers a supposed supernatural malevolent deity as a con who was using advanced technology [1] . The people of Ventax II believed they were justified in believing that this was Satan when they really weren't. They had no reason to prefer a supernatural explanation to a natural one. I contend that we actually have better reasons to prefer a crazy natural explanation rather than a supernatural one. If we recall my previous round, I mentioned abductive reasoning. The crazy sci-fi theories above may be unlikely if we were to run them through this method, but they would still be more likely than a supernatural explanation. They would all be simpler, since they don’t propose a whole new realm of existence. They may produce lots of questions, but since it sticks to the natural realm, it would propose less questions than the supernatural. Therefore, P2 is justified, P3 is assumed and the conclusion follows. As David Hume explains “[N]o testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish: and even in that case, there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.” [11] However, I’m not so convinced that Pro’s arguments warrant this generous assumption of premise 3. Prophecy Pro presents two arguments that are essentially the same. They argue that because the bible has fulfilled prophecy that we are justified in believing they are divine. In regards to the book of Isaiah, Pro is going against modern scholarship. It is widely held today that Isaiah had three different authors spanning over different time periods [2]. This reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s quote “When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain;” Pro says this isn’t traditional, but this is an appeal to tradition. Just because it’s traditional doesn’t make it correct. Does Pro claim that biblical scholarship has made no progress since the 18th century? Although it hasn’t been widely accepted, it was still suspected since the 11th century [4]. Furthermore, Pro’s dating method seems to be a hasty generalization. Isa 1:1 occurs in 148 years before the Babylon event doesn’t entail that the entire book occurred at that time period. Gen 1:1 occurs at year 1, but his doesn’t mean that Rev 22:21 occurs at this time period. The reason for this change is because there are clear differences in Isaiah beginning at chapter 40. The writing style isn’t written in a predictive style, but a presumption style [3]. The general literary style is also very different than chapter 1-39 [4]. The reason why the traditional view was held was because they already had the assumption that the book was written by a single author [4]. Pro cites the Dead Sea Scrolls (at least 100 BC), but the second part of Isaiah was said to be written during the times of Cyrus (about 539 BC as Pro stated). This is plenty of time for Isaiah to be unified and accepted as one book. Just because the scribe didn’t know that Isaiah was written by multiple authors doesn’t entail that this is false. His internal evidence isn’t convincing either. As cited above, the literary style is different starting a chapter 40. Furthermore, there was small pockets of idol worship during and after exile. “...the Jews were thoroughly weaned from all belief in idols, although superstition itself can never be wholly eradicated. Through mysticism and magic many polytheistic ideas and customs again found their way among the people...” [13] Pro states that Cyrus read the book of Isaiah and was amazed that it talked about him. Unless I’m missing something, Pro’s source is claiming this was true for Alexander the Great and the book of Daniel. Not Cyrus and the book of Isaiah. Nonetheless, Josephus’ claims need to be met with skepticism, especially when he's the only account of an event. Josephus is sometimes accurate, but he has been inaccurate a number of times [14]. Certain Christians argue this too. They claim Josephus is wrong about biblical chronology [15], wrote in a biased fashion, and he tends to exaggerate his testimony [16]. As for the book of Daniel, our earliest manuscripts date to 125 BCE [5]. The book of Daniel also wasn't in Hebrew Canon, which also seems to be good evidence of its late authorship [6]. Pro cites that the author of Daniel knew of Belshazzar. However, just because we couldn't find any evidence of Belshazzar’s existence until the 19th century doesn’t entail that his existence was lost throughout all of history. The Nabonidus Chronicle for example was copied sometime during the 4th-1rst century BCE, but mentioned Belshazzar [17][18]. The claim that Belshazzar was lost throughout history is unjustified and outright wrong. Lastly, perhaps the best reason to accept later dates is because it fits with our abductive reasoning. It is simpler, doesn’t propose a new realm of existence and therefore doesn’t propose more questions than it explains. Resurrection Pro argues that because we have eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection that we are justified in believing that he rose from the dead. However, Pro hasn’t shown these eyewitnesses are reliable. In many cases, I think Pro would agree that eyewitnesses are a poor form of evidence. The Koran describes eyewitnesses to Muhammad's moon splitting miracle [7], Jim Jones’ followers have witnessed Jones heal the sick and divine the future[8][9]. Even more impressive, Sri Sathya Sai Baba has eyewitnesses to a ton of miracles including resurrections, omnipresence, healings, bilocation and much more [10]. Most of these are contemporary eyewitnesses, but I doubt Pro is rushing to change his religion. Why should we reject these eyewitnesses and accept those from 2000 years ago? Since Pro’s justification for P2 fails, so too does his argument. Defense Pro states that my argument doesn’t deal with the possibility that God created the universe ‘out of time’. This is only dealing with my first defense of premise 2 and not the other 3. My very last defense was all about how God’s timeless nature prevents him from causing or interacting with the universe. Neither does it refute the other 2 defenses. Under eternalism, the timeline couldn’t be created, because everything on it would have existed eternally and therefore it couldn’t have came into being. In my third point, I argued that if God is omniscient, then all states of time must exist for as long as God has existed. Being outside of time doesn’t do a thing to help Pro’s case in these arguments. All of my defenses actually presume God is outside of time. I don’t see a meaningful difference to God being outside of time and God being prior to the universe. In order to be prior to the universe, you must be prior to time. If you are prior to time then it necessarily follows that you are outside of time. Otherwise, you’d have a problem of bootstrapping, you’d cause something’s existence while that thing already exists. If we observe Pro’s illustrations, we will see that before the start, we would be moving into the yellow zone. Which is the same thing as being outside of time. How could it be otherwise? If Pro really does wish to contend that there is a meaningful difference or incompatibility, then he must contradict scripture. Titus 1:2 states “in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began”. The older translations of Jude 1:25 speak about the Lord having dominion and power "before all the age," that is, before all time” [19]. The bible too argues that God is before time. Pro hasn’t provided a sound refutation to the skeptic cosmological argument. He conflates my first defense for premise 2 with my entire defense for it and misunderstands that the argument presumes God is outside of time.