God in nature (intelligent design) [Version 2]

Hi! Sorry for the late reply, I had a lot to do today! To clarify on the Miracle Argument. Essentially, judging from the historical facts as confirmed In the Gospels, the best explanation for these events (in nature) is that God raised Jesus from the dead - therefore God exists. Does that help? Anyway, on with the debate. PREMISE 1 My opponent's objection is centred around this premise - he asserts that actually certain Quantum Events have no cause - and therefore the premise 'everything that begins to exist has a cause' is disproven. However, this is entirely misguided - 'virtual particles' do not actually come into existence spontaneously from 'nothing'. Instead, the ENERGY contained within the vacuum fluctuates spontaneously, which converts into 'evanescent' particles that return back to the vacuum nearly immediately. The structure of the quantum vacuum (where the fluctuations occur) is a 'sea' of forming and dissolving particles that take the energy from the actual vacuum for their existence. Therefore a quantum vacuum certainly not 'nothing', and therefore vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to Premise 1. Moreover, this 'quantum theory' is entirely irrelevant in terms of the fact that everything that exists must have a cause - eventually, there has to be a cause that brought about the conditions in which an event operates. So we can say that the premise: "There are some uncaused beginnings of existence within space-time" Has no relation to and does not disprove the premise: "The beginning of the existence of space-time itself has a cause" Also, even if we grant this point - we can re-arrange the Cosmological argument to say this: 1) Ifthe universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause (as established earlier) 2) The universe began to exist 3) Therefore the universe has a cause The rest of my argument then follows. We can now exclude Quantum Events as the cause of the universe and therefore re-arrange the argument is because the cause of the universe has to be - as deduced earlier - changeless, timeless, immaterial, personal and hugely powerful. A Quantum Fluctuation is none of these things and therefore can be dismissed as the cause of he universe. So I can quite confidently say that we can keep Premise 1 and so no fallacy is committed. MORAL ARGUMENT Ok I will allow this version of the argument for the sake of the debate :) My opponent's main objection is the Euthyphro Dilemma. And I have to say, I agree with what he says. However, I would say that neither of these possibilities are true in relation to God. Rather, I would say that moral actions are good because they comply with God's nature. God commands things because HE is good. So in other words, considering God is the greatest possible being, moral truths are not contingent but necessary in all possible worlds, and so from a theistic point of view, we can say that God grounds these values in all possible worlds. Moreover, we can say that because of this, God is essentially good. To say that some property is essential to God is to say that there is no possible world in which God could have existed and lacked that property. I hope this answers your dilemma. We are wandering dangerously close to Ontological arguments but I think we can give some leeway :) ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES I have to say that I concede that I probably should have given a little more evidence the facts are sound beyond merely quotes! I will respond to each fact in order - stating why they are true and then stating why my opponent's rebuttals are wrong. Fact 1: My opponent says that I am appealing to popularity. It might have come across that way in the argument, but the reason why the majority of scholars believe this Is because there is indeed good evidence, of which I will present a few arguments. In these arguments, it is extremely important to disregard any prejudices against the historicacy and reliability of the Gospels. That, I think, would be a whole new debate (of which I would happily accept!) So what reasons do we have for the historical accuracy of the empty tomb? I will show 3 reasons - of which, if there had not been an empty tomb, would never have happened. So, if Jesus had not risen: 1 ~ The disciples could never have believed in Jesus' resurrection. In the context of 1st Century Judaism, the idea that a man could have raised from the dead while his body remained would have been considered simply impossible - it goes completely against their beliefs. So the disciples could have ONLY have believed in Jesus' Ressurection (as we know they did from Paul's letters) were the tomb empty. 2 ~ The disciples would not have got any following. If the body were found placed in the tomb, a movement based on the resurrection would have been foolish. 3 ~ The Jewish authorities would have exposed the affair. By far the easiest way to refute any claim of a resurrection by the Christians, would be for the Jews to point out Jesus' grave on the hillside. So what sources do we have for the evidence of the empty tomb? - Mentioned in the Pre-Markan Source which Mark used for his passion account. - Mentioned by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians (15:4) - The Account complies with archeological evidence concerning the location and type of Jesus' tomb. - The story lacks any evidence of mythical development I know it seems awfully typically Christian and unscholarly to merely quote Bible scriptures, but the simple fact is that these are reliable primary sources for the life of Jesus - Paul knew him for goodness sake! I hope these evidences are sufficient for my opponent - if he wishes I could provide additional arguments :) So why are the examples Con gave not sufficient? i) If the Jews stole the body - why would they not reveal it to the Christians to disregard their belief? The Christian belief is very un-Jewish; they would have gone to great lengths to disregard their beliefs. ii) What sort of precaution is Con referring to? If he could elaborate that would be swell. iii) I think I have given enough reasons why we can soundly say that the body was placed in the tomb. Fact 2: Let's give some evidences: 1 ~ The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus" resurrection appearances is quoted by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians (15:5-7. This essentially guarantees that these appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, the 500 brethren, and James. Paul announced the witnesses to the Corinthians so anybody willing could go and talk to them in person about it. 2 ~ Certain appearances have identifying characteristics of historicity. For instance, none of Jesus' brothers believed in him during his lifetime. Why would the early churchgmail up stories about the unbelief of Jesus" family had they been faithful followers all along? It is indisputable that Jesus' brothers became Christian believers following Jesus" death. James was an apostle and rose to the position of leadership of the Jerusalem church. According to Josephus, James was martyred for his faith in Christ in the late AD 60s. So the APPEARENCE to James in particular is certainly a historical fact. What about my opponent's explanation? It is very important to bear in mind that these appearances were not only to his followers - but to Jews and unbelievers also. People who knew him - but also to people who did not know him (remember the 500?). Of course there were people who 'wanted' to see him, but there are also testimonies from people who had never even heard of him, so I don't think that mass hysteria is a sufficient explaination for the sightings (nor does it explain the empty tomb). And considering that these people had every reason to think that they WERE NOT seeing the risen Jesus - it went against every Jewish belief there is - I think we can rationally say that these were real sightings. Fact 3: I think we just need to look at the simple 'explosion' of the Christian Church In the 1st century to realise this fact is true - as well as the witness' Testamonies as revealed by Paul. Again, I reiterate how contrary to Jewish belief this is - they would have had every reason to not believe what they saw - yet they believed. The horrible persecution of the Christians also indicates just how sincerely they believed - Peter was crucified upside down for his beliefs, and thousands were persecuted and killed for there beliefs. We don't only need to look at WHAT they believed - we also need to look at their sincerity and the price they were willing to pay for believing. CONCLUSION I'm sorry this is so long but there was a lot to explain! I think that my opponent's criticisms for my arguments are not sufficient in reffuting my arguments - and I guess I 'concede' that I maybe should have given some more evidence for my Argument from Miracles! :) N.T Wright: The Resurrection of The Son of God J.P Moreland/William Lane Craig: Philisophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview Dr William Lane Craig - Historical Jesus: A Scholarly Artical Jacob Kremer: Die Osterevangelien - Geschichten um Geschichte