Christianity is False

Geocentricism I didn’t claim the entire bible was written from a human POV. We’re dealing with the book of Joshua. Nor did I say just because it’s written from a human POV means it’s wrong. I want Con to understand, my point was that human POV isn’t always true. Since the human POV about Geocentricism is in the bible, then the bible is false. I see many problems claiming that Joshua was saying it just looked like the sun stopped. First, Con has given no reason to accept this over a literal interpretation. Second, one can use this to explain anything. For example, if an atheist is arguing with a christian about how the resurrection was absurd, the christian can claim “The resurrection was from a human point of view. Jesus didn’t actually have to rise, but it just looked like it”. Lastly, Joshua asked God to stop the sun. Why would you ask from a human POV knowing it’s wrong. If one asks a driver to slow down the car, does he say “Slow everything around us.”? Although to the passenger may look like everything is slowing and he may even write it looks this way. Yet asking the driver to slow everything and being serious about it shows the passenger is ignorant. Writing down that everything was slowed shows he’s wrong. Con then says the bible doesn’t have to be taken literally. I’m puzzled why he would say this, because it was agreed that Con would defend the literal truth of the bible. He then claims the sun does rotate around the milky way. I’m again puzzled, because we all know my argument was about Geocentricism. If the sun did stop revolving around the milky way, how would this have any effect on the Earth’s day? My argument still stands. Christmas Contradiction Lapis Tiburtinus Con dropped this argument. I wonder why, I’d be glad if Con admitted this argument was in error. Saturninus, Volumnius and Quirinius Unfortunately, Con’s new ad hoc argument, I feel is worse than his last. Richard Carrier says … there was never any such thing as a dual governorship under the Roman Empire, and it would be very strange if there were. It also does not solve the problem of the census--for even if Luke was referring to an earlier date, there could not have been a census of Judaea then, as shown above. Nevertheless, it is argued that Roman provincial commands were ambiguous and thus could be held by multiple persons at the same time, though this is argued with no evidence whatsoever, and it is flatly contradicted by the evidence we do have. I have seen only two examples offered as evidence to the contrary, but they do not make the case. The first comes from Josephus, where the casual remark "there was a hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, who were in charge of Syria"is taken to imply that there were two governors in Syria at the same time. But when we read Josephus' account of another hearing within a year or two of that one, we are given more specific information: it was held before "Saturninus and the senior colleagues of Pedanius, among whom was Volumnius the procurator." The procuratorship was a post held by men of the equestrian class (sometimes even ex-slaves), who were ineligible for the position of governor, and always of inferior rank to the governor.... So Volumnius was not and could not have been a governor of Syria, much less co-governor. The second "example" makes essentially the same error. [1] Next, Con says we should trust Luke because it’s accurate on other areas and Luke was a contemporary running around with Paul at that time. I’m amazed at the fallacies in this argument. First, Con assumes Luke is accurate to defend Luke’s accuracy. Viciously circular. Second, the argument commits the fallacy of composition. Even if Luke is accurate on some matters doesn’t mean he’s accurate on all matters. Third, even if Luke was a contemporary, this doesn’t mean he’s correct. I can make a claim about President Barack Obama fifteen years from now, but this wouldn’t instantly mean it was true or that I’m more reliable. Lastly, what I feel is the biggest problem is, the gospels are anonymous. “All four Gospels are anonymous in the sense that none includes the author's name. The traditional names - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - did not become associated with these writings until the second century” - Christianbiblereference.org [2]. The entire basis of which his argument rests hasn’t been proved. Justin Martyr, a Palestinian of the second century C.E., cited the Roman records as proof of Luke"s accuracy as regards Quirinius" governorship at the time of Jesus" birth. This is the appeal to authority fallacy. Just because Martyr said it doesn’t make it so. Why should we trust Martyr was accurate? What records are you actually talking about? Instead of citing a person who cited the records, why not cite the records themselves? Where did Martyr even mention it anyway? There is no evidence that Luke"s account was ever challenged by early historians, even by early critics such as Celsus. This commits the same appeal to authority fallacy. This doesn’t mean Luke is accurate just because no one challenged it. If there was cult leader who preaches crazy wild things, does the fact no one is challenging him count as evidence he’s correct? False information is false, regardless of who challenges it or who doesn’t. My argument is still standing. Jericho I’m puzzled why Con would claim some denominations date it to this date. It’s not just some, it’s the widely accepted date [3]. Con claimed in round 2, there is evidence that shows Joshua was dated to 1325, however no evidence was given by him. If Joshua has a different date, why is there no evidence to support it? The oldest manuscript we have of the Old Testament is 2nd century BCE [4]. The only way to date the Old Testament books that are as old as Joshua would be to use internal biblical evidence [5]. If Con objects to the date, he must object to the bible. Also, there would still be some overlap of pottery around that time. C-14 dating Con then objects to C-14 dating. However I think the ironic thing is his own source responds to his objection. Con’s objection is something known to archaeologists, geologists and anthropologists. Con is basically saying there is going to be a margin of error. Anyone who knows about carbon dating will admit this. C-14 is can be calibrated independently using different clocks [6][7] and using this, we can measure the margin. It doesn’t make C-14 inaccurate, it just means there’s a margin of error. The very paper I cited said what the margin was, it was plus or minus 38 years [8]. Still doesn’t help Con. Con’s responses have been refuted. Conclusion Con committed a straw man fallacy on the first section. Thinking I meant the Earth can’t stop naturally. Con said Joshua was written from a human POV. However, I showed the many problems with this interpretation. In the next section, Con tells us about the Lapis Tiburtinus, however I quoted Richard Carrier showing this isn’t very good evidence. Con remained silent on that and instead gave us another argument about dual rulership. Again the Historian Carrier refutes it. Con then gives an argument that contains circular reasoning, compositional errors and a shaky basis. In the last section, Con said the dates could be wrong, but not the bible. However, the bible is often dated internally, when you’re dealing with the OT. He also cited Dr. Wood. I cited evidence proving Wood wrong. Con instead only dealt with a little bit on the pottery and attacked the dating methods. However his argument is basically saying there’s a margin of error, which the paper dealt with. Perhaps the most disappointing thing is that Con didn’t fulfill his BOP. It was agreed in the first round that the burden of proof was shared. Con never provided an argument in favor of Christianity, thus he never met his BOP. Sources [1] http://www.debate.org... Due to space constraints, all sources are within there.