Theism (Pro) vs. Naturalism (Con)

Summary of Con’s opening argumentCon presents his argument with this syllogism: P1. If God exists, then the universe was created. P2. The universe wasn’t created. C. God doesn’t exist. I grant that this syllogism is valid (i.e., constructed in such a way so that if the major and minor premises are true, the conclusion must also be true), but I deny that it is sound (i.e., having both major and minor premises being true and thus having the conclusion true). Con supports the major premise via the definition of God. Then to support the minor premise, he argues that in order for the universe to be created (by God), it had to have been created either 1) before time or 2) simultaneously with time; Con then attempts to show that neither could be the case. However, he said nothing to convince me that the universe couldn’t have been created 3) outside of time. Rebuttal The “reel world” What do I mean by this third scenario? It seems that Con is using the word time in a way that is parallel with the Universe; in this sense, the beginning of the Universe is the beginning of time and the end of the universe would be the end of time. However, this third scenario I presented argues that God exists outside the universe and its time. If I would not be considered a thief by using one of Con’s own illustrations, let me illustrate with a movie reel: Inside a movie reel is everything that goes on in the movie; we’ll call it the “reel world.” Sometime in between the start of the movie and the finish (shown by the gray [technically lavender] timeline above), let’s say a character in the movie named Joe tells his friend John, “Did you know that this whole world (i.e., the ‘reel world’) was created by a director?” John replies, “Of course not! If this world were created, it would have to have been created either 1) before time (which would be before the ‘Start’ mark shown above on the timeline) or 2) simultaneously with time (which would be right on the ‘Start’ mark). And we know neither of those are the case.” Does this refute the existence of the director? No, because John forgot to deal with the possibility that their world was created 3) outside of time (unaffected by the timeline). In other words, the timeline itself was created by the director! (And this is true even though all scenes in the movie [represented by the timeline], from beginning to end, exist at the same, well, time.) And thus the director (who resides in the yellow area marked “Real world”) had everything in the blue circle created. Application to the “real world” What we have learned above is that a given realm (in the example’s case, the “reel world”) can be created by someone existing outside of the realm who is unaffected by its time. In fact, this is what the prophet Isaiah (discussed in my opening argument in Round 2) says about the God by whom he prophesied—that His name is “Our Redeemer from Everlasting” (Isa. 63:16, emphasis added). In other words, He is from (His origins go back to) everlasting, or eternity; He is eternal, outside of and unaffected by the time of our Universe. It sounds like this: You see, it’s the exact same concept as with the movie reel. Sometime in between the start of the Universe and the finish (shown by the gray [technically lavender] timeline above), let’s say someone in the Universe named Pro tells his friend Con, “Did you know that this whole world (i.e., the ‘Universe’) was created by a Creator?” Con replies, “Of course not! If this world were created, it would have to have been created either 1) before time (which would be before the ‘Start’ mark shown above on the timeline) or 2) simultaneously with time (which would be right on the ‘Start’ mark). And we know neither of those are the case.” Does this refute the existence of the Creator? No, because Con forgot to deal with the possibility that the world was created 3) outside of time (unaffected by the timeline). In other words, the timeline itself was created by the Creator! (And this is true even though all states of the Universe’s time [represented by the timeline], from beginning to end, exist at the same, well, time [assuming eternalism to be true]. And thus the Creator (who resides in the yellow area marked “Metaphysical world”) had everything in the blue circle created. Thus, the “Reel World” rebuttal shows the cosmological argument (skeptic’s edition) to be unsatisfactory. (And, to leave seriousness for a moment, if Con should argue that I am stealing his illustration, I reply that he is attempting to steal the theists’ cosmological argument in the first place, as the cosmological argument generally refers to an argument used to support theism.) Conclusion Con failed to address the third scenario of how God could create the universe, namely, that God is outside of time and created the Universe with its time. Since this was his only argument, he is left without any others. Thus, his only means of showing naturalism to be more reasonable than theism is to explain why the third scenario could not be the case. Opening arguments While neither of us may add new arguments, I will use my extra space to further support the arguments of mine which I presented in Round 2. Cyrus the Great While I could be wrong, the only point of disagreement I expect to receive with the Books of Isaiah and Daniel is the time in which they each were written. While the burden of proof for a change in date is on Con, since the understanding of the date I gave has been such for centuries until suddenly changing, I will present evidence to support the earlier dates. Ancient sources The earliest manuscript of the Book of Isaiah, part of the collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has a date of at least 100 B.C.[1] And yet this scroll contains all 66 chapters of the book without making any disctinctions. In fact, consider this: The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah were able to be merged into a single scroll with the clarity that Ezra wrote one part and Nehemiah wrote the other.[2] What does this have to do with Isaiah? The copyist of this manuscript of Isaiah makes no indication in verse 1 of chapter 40—supposedly the first verse of the “second” author—distinguishing between Isaiah and some other author. If Chapters 40–66 were written by someone else, the manuscript would have said so. In fact, verse one of Chapter 40 runs together with the last verse of Chapter 39, being on the same page.[3][2] This shows that the author had no knowledge of the Book of Isaiah being written by anyone other than Isaiah. Also, Titus Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, not only wrote as if Isaiah was understood to have been written by one person but also said that Cyrus read the Book after fulfilling it. Astonished by its accuracy, he decided to complete the last part of its fulfillment by freeing the Jews so that they could rebuild the temple.[4] Clearly, he and his audience didn’t follow the theory which higher critics now espouse. (In fact, they wouldn’t have even heard about it.) Internal evidence If the Book of Isaiah were written during the exile, we would expect the author to write with the language of the time. Ezra and Nehemiah do such, but Isaiah uses pure Hebrew.[2][3] In addition, Isaiah speaks against idolatry in 1:29–30, which makes sense for the time of Isaiah. However, passages after chapter 39 (claimed by the higher critics to have been written after the Jews were being set free from the Babylonian captivity) also speak against idolatry, such as Isaiah 57:4–8, which includes child sacrifice. However, idolatry wasn’t a problem after the Jews left the Babylonian captivity.[2] If Isaiah 39–66 were post-exilic, then they shouldn’t have to deal with idolatry, just as the other post-exilic writings (Haggai, Zechariah, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi) don’t deal with it.[2] The Ram and the Goat Now I shall present more evidence that Daniel was written in the 6th century B.C. If the Book of Daniel were written in the 2nd century B.C. (and thus did not divinely prophecy Greece’s victory over Media and Persia), then how did the author know of “the reign of King Belshazzar” (8:1)? Ironically, the Book of Daniel’s mention of King Belshazzar used to be an argument used by skeptics against the divine inspiration of the book, saying that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon and thus that Daniel made Belshazzar up. However, several archeological discoveries, including the Nabonidus Chronicle, revealed that Belshazzar was the son and coregent of Nabonidus.[4] This also explains why Daniel was offered the third highest position, not the second (Dan. 5:16). It turns out that when Cyrus invaded, Nabonidus was not in Babylon but in Arabia, where he died around the time of Cyrus’ invasion.[5] Belshazzar was forgotten from the 6th century B.C. until the Nabonidus Chronicle was discovered and published in the 19th century A.D.[4] If the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century B.C., during the time Belshazzar was unknown, how did the author of Daniel know about him? And how did he know that because of both Nabonidus and Belshazzar, Daniel would have the third highest position, not the second? The resurrection Lacking space, I’ll wait until the next round to continue on the resurrection, after Con attempts to present a more plausible theory that also explains all that historians largely agree about concerning the resurrection. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, theism is more reasonable than naturalism. While Con attempted to abductively show the contrary, it did not take into account 1) that Isaiah prophesied by name of Cyrus the Great, 2) that Daniel prophesied that Media and Persia would fall to Greece, and 3) that Jesus resurrected from the dead. Of course, this is because he wouldn’t concede all this and will attempt to debunk these three points this round. However, I’m sure he’d agree that if these things are as I say, then theism, not naturalism, would better fit the five criteria used in abductive reasoning.I'm enjoying this debate and anticipate your response.