Religion (Christ)

1. AcceptanceI accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!I assume my opponent will be affirming the position that atheism as true, while I will be affirming the position that Christian theism is true. As such, the burden of proof in this debate is shared.2. RebuttalMy opponent began by presenting some of his own objections to Christianity. I'll attempt to address these objections one by one before moving on to give reasons to think that Christianity is true."I read the Bible and it did not seem right."This isn't really an objection, but more of a statement. I'd like to ask my opponent what it is about the Bible (perhaps a particular passage or teaching) that "did not seem right"."I then switched to atheist views..." Why the sudden switch to atheism? It seems to me that even if one were to disprove Christianity (or merely lose faith) this would leave that individual at theism. So, why is it that you hold atheism to be true as opposed to theism?"Almost every groups of people made their own religion and there are believed to be roughly 4,200 religions."Surely the fact that there are many existing theories as to what religion is the true one does not discredit any one religion in particular? As an example, let's consider the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Suppose that there were 4,200 competing theories explaining how life on Earth became the way it is today. Furthermore, let's suppose that each of these 4,200 alternate views are just as nonsensical as 7-day creationism. Does the existence of such a numerous amount of views somehow discredit any one particular view (the theory of evolution by natural selection)? Of course not. The evidence for evolution by natural selection would be just as compelling if there were 4,200 competing views as it is now. In the very same way, the existence of so many religions does nothing to discredit the truth of Christianity (which I will get to later)."This definately helped satisfy people and make them feel safe."There seems to be a hint of the genetic fallacy here. I agree that religion tends to satisfy people and provide comfort. However, the fact that religion satisfies people and provides comfort for them does nothing to show that it is false. "But as our technologies become more advanced and we become samrter, we dont need myths and magic..."I agree that we don't need myths and magic. I would argue that Christianity is neither a myth nor magic."But still the majority of people believe in these myths even though the plain facts are simple."Here you appear to be implicitly suggesting that Christianity is a myth. Please specify what parts of Christianity you believe to my myths. Also, what are the "plain facts" that you're referring to?3. ArgumentsI will provide a few brief arguments in support of theism. These arguments build a cumulative case for the existence of the Christian conception of God. I encourage my opponent to take these arguments into genuine consideration. Each argument's conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. This means that in order to deny the conclusion, one must object to a premise. Until each argument is knocked down, it seems to be that there is good reason to believe that Christian theism is more likely true than atheism.i. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.Defense of P1: I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.Defense of P2: There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.ii. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.C1: Therefore, God exists.Defense of P1: Here again, premise one is relatively uncontroversial. If there is no God, then we have no standard from which to deem particular moral acts "good" or "evil". In order for objective moral values and duties to exist, there must exist a perfect standard: God.Defense of P2: Each of us have a sense of morality which tells us that certain actions are objectively "good" or objectively "evil". For example, I can clearly recognize that altruism (self-sacrifice in order to further the well-being of others) is objectively good. I can also clearly recognize that raping and torturing a child is objectively evil. I have no more reason to doubt the reliability of these moral senses than I do to doubt the reliability of my physical senses. In other words, for any argument given in an attempt to show that our moral senses are not valid (and objective morality is therefore not valid), I can construct a parallel argument to show that our physical senses are not valid (and the physical world we experience through these senses is therefore not valid). In order for one to disagree with premise two, one must believe that an action like rape is just as "good" as an action like generosity, and that no objective distinction can be made between the nature of "goodness" of the two acts.I don't have the space necessary for more arguments, but I'd be happy to provide them in the next round at my opponent's request.Thanks, back to Con!