It is more rational to believe humanity is a random by-product of this universe than created by God.

Andy asked me my stance on God, so I thought I would do so in the form of a debate as to what is more rational to believe in - that we are a random by-product of a random universe, or that we were created by a higher power. I deliberately set no format rules or parameters for this debate, as I'm more interested in the logical discussion than "winning" an argument. As goes God, the basics to my stance: 1) God "is". Always existed, always has, always will. 2) God created this universe, and all of the life within it. 3) God has revealed himself to humanity, first through the Israelites - and then through Christ to all of mankind. 4) Christ is a historical figure who really lived in first century Palestine. 5) The Gospels are a written record of historical evidence which testify to the life and works of Christ. At least one of which, John, claims to be a first-hand eye-witness account. [This is where it irks me when it is suggested that there is no evidence to believe in God - the gospels are a historical record of eye-witness testimony - as valid, if not moreso, as the works of Herodotus on Greek history, Suetonius and Tacitus on Roman history and so forth] 6) If you take the gospel records to be reliable testimony, Christ himself confirms the validity of the Old Testament by directly quoting it as truth, so if He was who He claimed to be then the Old Testament must be valid also. [Although not necessarily to be read as a literal scientific manual, as large parts of it appear metaphorical] 7) I have yet to come across a sensible, all-encompassing theory from any atheist to deny the validity of the Gospels and the existence of the historic Christ. There are several standalone theories, which taken individually might be plausible to explain away one aspect of Christ - but each time it leaves several other aspects of Christianity unaddressed. So then what you normally hear is several individual arguments strung together in succession (eg my points (a) to (e) below) - but it is clear you can't adhere to all five points together at the same time, as some are simply mutually exclusive. There is no single overarching theory that adequately explains away everything about Christ, and the rapid rise of Christianity after his death. Eg you could argue: a) that Christ was just a bit "unhinged" - and genuinely believed he was the Son of God as some people genuinely believe they are Elvis today - then that could explain some stuff, but not for example how he could have performed convincing miracles to crowds of eye-witnesses in such a mentally compromised state. If he genuinely believed he was God, he wouldn't have faked the miracles. b) then you might argue that he was a charlatan, he knew he wasn't the Son of God, and the miracles were tricks - but then that doesn't explain why he would deliberately antagonise the authorities and refuse to recant and just say he made it all up when faced with crucifixion. It would take a very committed con artist to go to his own death, and an agonising and horrific death at that, all just for a "show". If he was after fame and a following in this lifetime, knowing that he wasn't really who he claimed, then clearly that is not the way any sufficiently intelligent and devious person would choose to go about it. c) then you might say that Christ didn't exist at all, and the disciples made it all up - but then that doesn't make sense of the fact that the disciples gave up their entire lives, suffered persecution, prison, torture and death for most of them to spread the message of something they knew to be false. Again, it would take very committed con men to go through all that for no tangible worldly benefit, and the fact there were so many of them makes the likelihood of not one of them capitulating under pressure and recanting their message almost non-existent. d) then you might say, ok so maybe Christ did exist, but that he was just a nice bloke with some radical socialist ideals about being good to your neighbour etc, and the miracles just got embellished over time to the point of hyperbole, "Chinese whispers" style. However this fails on two logical points, in that: i) the gospels were written between about 30 years (Mark) and 60 years (John) after the death of Christ. This might sound a lot by modern standards, but compare that length of time to Herodotus, Suetonius, Tacitus and most historical historians of the time - and 30-60 years is frankly the blink of an eye, particularly in a culture used to passing on historical information verbally as the Jews were. There simply wasn't the time for the hyperbole to creep in, particular as 30 years would have been well within the lifetime of people who lived there and knew Christ who would have simply refuted what the disciples were saying as false - and ii) the fact that many other religions flourished in the past, and indeed since, but they all have one key difference in that what they claim is largely unfalsifiable. Christianity claimed the public miracles of Christ, which again would have been easily refuted and countered as never having happened by the people who actually lived in Israel in the decades immediately after Christ's crucifixion. If you were going to make up a fake religion, surely far better to base it on something entirely unrefutable - like Scientology for an example literally plucked out of the air. And again this point still fails to account for the rapid rise of Christianity, as why would the disciples spread the gospel and suffer severe persecution and death if Christianity just started off as something fairly ordinary to begin with - just a nice bloke with some socialist ideals, and the angels/miracles bits only got added in later? That makes no sense. e) then you might argue that the gospel accounts contradict themselves in places on minor points (and this is true, they do) - hence it must all be a load of baloney. But that is a logical non-sequitur. The fact that there are minor differences between the gospel accounts, if anything, makes it more likely that the accounts are genuine. If it was all made up, then they would have been more careful to cross every "i" and dot every "t" and make sure everything was aligned. As it stands, it is more authentic in that there must have been separate authors who remember different aspects of the events from their own individual standpoints - particularly Mark and John. The parallel I draw here, is say there is a big multi-car accident on a major road one day and the authorities take about 10 eye-witness statements of the event. I can almost guarantee they will all remember different things, and may even directly contradict each other on minor points. What do we deduce from this, that there probably wasn't a car accident after all? Hardly! Overarching all of these standalone counter-points that atheists tend to make, is that whilst they are potentially plausible theories, what they certainly aren't is counter-evidence! It is pure speculation. There is no written record from the time which directly contradicts the gospel accounts - not a single shred of tangible evidence. To the contrary, it is not the Christians who base their belief in Christ on no evidence - it is the atheists!! Now of course, I don't have conclusive evidence - but I have enough, and with rational analysis of all of the available data, I can draw the conclusion that the only explanation for the rapid rise of Christianity is that the disciples genuinely believed what they saw in the miracles, and genuinely believed in the death and resurrection of Christ, to such an extent that they went from cowering in hiding immediately after his execution - to spreading the gospel message far and wide with confident joy a few weeks later. Something significant must have happened. You then tie that in with existence and morality - and for me it is far more rational that there is an infinite deity who cares about his creation enough to grant us free will despite the downside of the possibility of evil - and to provide a morally justified escape plan through the propitiation of our inevitable sin as a result of our free will. The alternate is that we are merely a by-product of random causation of the matter of this universe, and that we have no meaning, no purpose, no hope - and ultimately your life is utterly pointless. As I've just argued in another debate, you could be as saintly as Mother Teresa, or as evil as the worst human being you can imagine - ultimately this universe will cease to exist (implode on itself, or suffer heat death), and there is no eternal justice or consequences for any of your actions. You can try to con yourself that you can derive your own meaning from life, but in the case God does not exist then I doubt you can even argue your consciousness is "valid". Your brain is just a bunch of chemicals and electrical signals which has arisen as a random consequence of this random universe. How can you trust that your brain is rational at all if that is its source? At best your randomly created brain is just conning you into thinking there is meaning in life and that you are a rationally independent being. Because if you are just a random by-product of a random universe, you can't seriously be logically arguing that whatever your random brain tells you is in any way trustworthy or rational? Only with the existence of God can you claim human life to be sacred, and have purpose, and that we have rational independent thought and morality, and a hope that this fallen world is only a temporary "test" where we have the benefit of free will. See all my debate on "Christianity" for my further thoughts on this if you are interested.