The Jesus Myth Debate

Sir, I understand that you are skeptical. Even I'm skeptical, sometimes. I hear a well thought-out argument from someone that challenges my views, and I look into it. However, everything you have challenged me on, I have given a way it doesn't contradict the Bible. You haven't changed your opinion, you've made that clear. (And thank you very much for being so polite towards the end) I will respect that opinion. I just want you to understand that you had yet to provide an argument I couldn't explain. Now I'll address your final points.I am not offended when you attack my faith. Debate is designed so that validity of arguments is "tried by fire", if you will. Any believer that gets offended when you challenge them politely and reasonably is probably not very secure in their faith.I'm sorry, but I think it's a bit farfetched to think that you can shrug off Jesus' feeding 5,000 with only 2 fish and 3 loaves of bread, due to the fact that the human mind can imagine a middle finger. You are being skeptical. You admitted yourself that your first thought after a cancer patient recovered would be that their body's immune system made a leap forward, despite the fact there's no logical reason to assume this. If we can assume there's a God, through the KCA (the syllogism I presented that you didn't disupte), and we can see that Christianity, if one assumes there is a God, is the soundest faith of any on this planet, then we can assume that God healed this cancer patient. However, even though cancer survivor's bodies have been examined and there is no explanations for these recoveries, you're willing to assume it is there, we just don't see it yet. Logic doesn't work like that. Logic takes what you know, and allows you to draw reasonable conclusions. Your lack of belief in God isn't logical, you haven't provided any reason for me to believe it is.Your defense for pantheism being reasonable is "everything is the biggest thing out there". However, who said God was big? How does this backup your reasoning? I'm not drawing the connection. You told me all of existence backed it up, and I would say the same for my God. However, you told me that I wouldn't be satisfied with your answer... However, if you had showed how exactly everything backed up your theory, I don't think there would be much room for argumentation on my part. In the end, it comes across as a "You wouldn't understand" kind of argument. I know you didn't mean to be insulting, and I haven't taken it that way. However, that is the gist of what you're saying, if I'm not mistaken.Yes, sceintific fact is reliable. But science can only deal in the present. Again, I agree that scientific laws is very trustworthy. I do not doubt it. However, in science, we can only test what we see. So we will never be able to test the beginning of the earth, even if one day a credible atheistic theory does come about. (Sorry if that seems harsh, but it is very hard to reasonable believe the big bang theory or the string theory)As for the credibility of eyewitnesses, you trust the accounts of wars and such from ancient eras, don't you? You trust the historical documents that have been passed down for centuries. You trust the writings that stated that Colombus came to the Americas. You trust the writing that states that the U.S. was engaged in a bloody civil war. You even trust the documents that state your great great grandparents even existed! (Well, you have photographs for the last one possibly) What I'm saying is that almost everything we take for granted is because we know we can trust eyewitness account. Is it able to be proven scientifically? No. But it is still evidence. And the sheer amount of eyewitnesses to Jesus' miracles and teachings and conduct would lead you to believe that the Bible's testimony is reliable.Again, you brought up the ability to hallucinate. However, unlike Mormonism and Islam, two religions which very well could've started with hallucinations, Christianity asks us to believe in historical events. There has been no prood that any of these events didn't happen. There are theories, some unanswered, but they have a track record of being accounted for eventually.I've actually read quite a bit of Richard Dawkins. Lawrence Krauss, not so much. But I am familiar with both the "big bang theory" and "string theory" (as I mentioned htem earlier). I, again, want to point out that your dismissal of the creationism theory actually makes you seem closed-minded, when you're trying to state you're open ot every possibility. There is no logical argument, and no evidence, that creationism is wrong. There is the KCA (the syllogism I presented earlier) and the world's amazing complexity, to support creationism. Yet you drop the topic faster than a politician's promise after election day. The big bang theory and string theory both do not explain how something came from nothing. Even the "big bang" had to have a cause. No logical argumentation could support something out of nothing. It's a scientific fact that everything must have a cause, the same kind of fact you stated was incredibly reliable. Yes, open to change, but we can assume it's true until it does have to adapt (IF it does).As to relative truth. You tell me that you're paving the way for common ground. However, the only way different viewpoints will ever come together is if one of them conforms to the other. That is why different beliefs evangelize... or use other means, depending on what their holy book says. There is no such thing as coexisting. If truth is all relative, we will still not have peace. Why? Because you're giving just as much legitimacy to the views of Muslim jihadists as yourself! If they're "right" because truth is relative... then you have no right to call them immoral, despite the fact that they're murdering infidels left and right. Correct?You answered my final point, using Pascal's wager, to say that you only care about the consequences of your actions in this life. That is fair. However, I can assure you that I am making the most of this life right now. God hates the atrocious things done in His name as much as you or I do. However, I am a Christian who is trying to provide living testimony to His love. In this, my sense of purpose is justified, and I am happy. I can feel safe. I can feel loved. If it's all an illusion, but I'm happy, and making others happy by loving them, great. If it also gets me to heaven, even better. Right? I do think that Christianity is os much more than "a way to be happy", but even if it wasn't... there you go. It's a win-win for me.Thank you very much to you, my opponent, and to anyone who reads this/votes on it. I encourage you, whichever side of this argument you initially were on, or concludingly, to challenge your own beliefs. I admire Finalfan for being able to come on here and defend his thoughts. Do I think they're correct? No. You can draw your own conclusions about their validity. But I certainly won't dismiss them, and I'm glad he didn't with mine! (Well... mostly ;) haha) The point of this, in the end, is to show that you must "try your ideas by fire" to see how resilient they are under pressure.Finalfan, I look forward to discussing this with you more in the future. I'm on vacation right now though so I'm trying to limit myself to finishing the debates I have already started. However, maybe in a few weeks we can pick this up again. I certainly wouldn't mind. Have a fantastic wedding, my friend. I truly wish you and your wife the best.