Convince me that the Christian faith is the truth

== AFFIRMING CHRISTIANITY == P1) God My opponent requests a source confirming how lax the prerequisites for a planet to be considered "earth-like" are. Here ya go [1]. All that is required for a planet to be "earth-like" is be a certain distance away from its star (i. e. have habitable temperatures) and have a protective atmosphere. That isn't even *close* to what is needed for life to develop. I have shown that the chance of even the most simplest lifeforms evolving *even* in favorable conditions is about 1 in 10^40. Most estimates show that at *most* there are only 10^15 earth-like planets in the *entire universe* [2]. The chance of life evolving *anywhere* in our universe is infinitesimally small. The existence of a personal creator God creates a far, far more likely context for the evolution of life than an atheistic/deistic viewpoint. Fine-tuning was almost certainly involved in the development of life on Earth. Combine that with that fact that billions of people have experienced spiritual contact with God. My opponent wants a source confirming this as well. Here ya go [3]. Such instances of contact with the divine have been well-established throughout human history and continue to remain so in the present. Considering that, along with the fact that God almost certainly was involved in the development of life, it becomes very difficult to continue claiming that he isn't a personal deity. This premise is resoundingly affirmed. P2) Sin I'm not really sure how to respond to Pro's comments here. All he has done is tell us that he is personally incredulous of why Jesus would sacrifice himself to symbolize the forgiveness of humanity for its sins and open up a path to salvation. That isn't a rebuttal-- it is an unsupported opinion, and should be dismissed as such. The point is that the doctrine of original sin is true, as my opponent seems to concede anyways. This premise is affirmed. P3) Jesus It doesn't matter that the writer of Pro's cited blogpost is a professor; it is still a blogpost, rather than one of the professor's published papers. Outside of academia, a professor has no obligation or incentive to be completely accurate in his claims. My source, which uses several primary sources, is clearly superior-- Christianity was very widespread just decades after Jesus was crucified, implying that a miracle like the resurrection really did happen. Pro says I didn't cite a source to support my claims comparing the historical accuracy of the Gospels to that of Greek and Roman histories, but I did-- in round 1. Here it is again: [4]. Pro also notes that 2 out of the 4 Gospel writers were not eye-witnesses to the events they are writing about, but he provides no source for this at all. Biblical scholars flat out disagree with him on that [5]. The Gospels represent four separate, reliable historical sources, and so the major events which they all agree upon, such as the Resurrection, should be accepted as having actually happened (especially since we have already established the existence of a personal creator God, which makes such an occurrencemuch more plausible). *** Moreover, Pro has completely dropped my argument that the Resurrection was necessary for the continued survival of Christianity as a religion, and is thus conceding this premise to be true *** == NEGATING EVOLUTION == Pro has utterly failed to contest this argument. He is hung up over me providing a specific example of a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis, but that has literally nothing to with anything. He completely misses the point: Christians are *not bound at all* by the Bible, because there is no reason to believe that it was divinely inspired. They can take any interpretation they want from it, or only pay heed to the New Testament, or reject the Bible as a whole completely; it makes no difference at all. The Bible does not dictate what Christians must believe, and thus Pro's only basis for believing that Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive is fallacious. I do not have to disprove the theory of evolution to affirm Christianity. * == CONCLUSION == Pro has not contested my framework; he agrees that if I affirm all three premises, then I have affirmed that the Christian faith as a whole is true. Since I have successfully shown that all three premises are most likely true, I have fulfilled by burden of proof. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Con! * [1] . http://www.solstation.com... [2] . http://www.npr.org... [3] The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology " (Kindle Locations 13933-13940) [4] . https://carm.org... [5] . http://christianity.net.au...