Does the Christian God Exist

I find debate on the subject of God to be fascinating, especially from the side of the theist. As Christopher Hitchens said… “Well, why do I say charming? Because I think it's rather sweet that people of faith also think they ought to have some evidence. “ Summary of Pro’s argument Pro argues that Jesus existed, that the New Testament is a reliable source for history and thus as it claims Jesus was raised from the Dead that Jesus is God. It should be apparent already that even if you grant a miracle, like resurrection, it does not lead to proving one is God. This is a non-sequitur. Also of note, even if it is found that Jesus existed historically, it does not follow that this means the Christian God exists. More on this later, I will address Pro’s argument in depth. 1: The Existence of Jesus Pro states that almost all scholars in our age believe that Jesus was a real person who claimed to be God. He quotes C. S. Lewis who argued erroneously that Jesus could not have been a good person; rather he is either God or Crazy. Pro goes even further, claiming that you can’t be a good person or a good teacher if you are insane. Consider if you would Sir Isaac Newton. Famous scientist, helped society begin to understand physics. He believed in Alchemy. This demonstrates that a great scientist is capable of subscribing to falsehoods. Likewise, consider Mahatma Gandhi. Often he is referred to as a moral leader. There is evidence that he was a pedophile. Furthermore, consider Martin Luther King Jr. Certainly a significant figure in civil rights and a moral leader, also a Christian. We know now he often committed adultery. My point being as follows; It is reasonable to say Jesus taught moral things as a good man and also taught nonsense or was imperfect. The simple idea of Jesus as a historical figure does not prove divinity in anyway. I am willing to concede that a man named Jesus lived, though this does little to help pro. It is also stated by pro that the best explanation for the historically verified empty tomb is a resurrection of the dead. Added to this is the claim that 500 people saw Jesus after his death. Let’s follow this logic, Muhammad had eyewitnesses to his miracles. (5) Same with Jim Jones. (6) There are even eyewitnesses to Sri Sathya Sai Baba performing resurrections. (7) Is pro as convinced of these accounts as the one’s he has provided? If not, why not? If eyewitness are all that is needed to verify a resurrection, then there have been many and the resurrection of Jesus is a dime a dozen. (8) Furthermore, if resurrection is all it takes to prove one is God, it would seem Pro would have to believe there is more than one God. This creates a huge problem as the “Christian God” leaves no room for other God’s. Thus, either we have many God’s and the Christian God is a liar which supposedly he cannot be, or eyewitnesses to a resurrection do not a God make. Either way, the Christian God does not exist. 2: New Testament Sources Pro claims that “according to scholars” the gospels are 99.5% accurate, though he does not post a source to back this up. Pro argues that people mentioned in the Bible have been proven to exist and that many events in the Bible happened. Just as a point of reference, Tom Clancy writes novels that often deal with real weapons, locations, and plausible events. Perhaps, enough so to make his books 99.5% accurate, does this mean his books are facts? Pro also argues an embarrassment factor. He states “Therefore the New Testament is reliable due to the embarrassing events that it mentions. ” This is another non-sequitur. Something being absurd or embarrassing does not have any bearing on it being true. Pro says “the information is accurate because it was written by real people who wrote about real people, real places, and about real events that took place. For example, when a person reads the gospel of Matthew, they are reading an eyewitness account of the events that took place…” Speaking of things that virtually all scholars agree on… the gospels were written well after the supposed resurrection not to mention, we don’t know who the authors are. This is especially amusing as pro refers to authors of the gospels as “eye witnesses” naming Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not one of which is verified to be the authors of those gospels. (1,2,3,4) Pro’s eyewitness that he lists were not eyewitnesses. 3: Gospels show that Jesus raised from the dead thus proving that Jesus is God. At last we have arrived to the final portion of Pro’s argument. I feel by this point I have already shown this not to be the case. Eyewitness support of miracles is not unique to Christians, nor do they prove divinity. Conclusion Pro’s argument is that Jesus existed was resurrected as verified by eyewitness, and therefore he is the Christian God and exists. It should be clear that the appeal to eyewitness is weak at best. Pro’s argument is negated in so much as either you accept his argument and accept that there are many God’s thus disproving the Christian God specifically as it is said he cannot lie, or you reject pro’s argument and understand that a miracle claim does not a God make. Either way, Vote Con! (1) . https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) . https://en.wikipedia.org... (3) . https://en.wikipedia.org... (4) . https://en.wikipedia.org... (5) . http://www.islamreligion.com... (6) . http://jonestown.sdsu.edu... (7) . http://www.saibaba.ws... (8) . https://en.wikipedia.org...