Convince me that the Christian faith is the truth

== Affirming Evolution == P1) God Pro's rebuttal essentially boils down to "there are billions of earth-like planets out there". I agree. However, this doesn't show that there wasn't fine-tuning involved in the development of life. All "earth-like" means is that the planet has a habitable temperature range and that it has an atmosphere which protects it from cosmic rays. Obviously, these conditions alone are not even *close* to what is necessary for life to evolve. There needs to be an ample amount of water, a huge array of organic compounds, very specific weather conditions, and much more; very few planets other than Earth meet *all* of those conditions. Furthermore, remember that Dr. Hoyle calculated the chances of a bacterium forming through abiogenesis as being 1 out of 10^40 *even* on Earth, which had all the necessary conditions for it to happen. To claim that there was no fine-tuning involved in the development of life on Earth is ludicrous. In addition, Pro never responds to my point about transcendental experiences; the fact that so many different people have reported instances of direct contact with God, in conjunction with the strong evidence for the universe being fine-tuned for life, makes it highly likely that God is a personal deity who is involved with human affairs, just as Christianity preaches. P2) Sin Again, Pro misses the point. I did not claim that Christianity is the only religion which condemns certain sins; the fact that these sins are universally condemned across many religions just serves as evidence that the Christian moral standard is objectively true. But that is irrelevant; the point is that it is part of human nature to engage in those sins, and thus the doctrine of original sin is true. As for Pro's random question about Jesus's sacrifice, he seems to misunderstand the Christian narrative... Jesus did not prevent sins from occurring; rather, his death symbolically represented the *forgiveness* of those sins (past, present, and future). P3) Jesus Pro says that the Gospels were written more than 40 years after Jesus died and that there are contradictions between them, but as I explained in my opening argument, that is all actually highly typical of historical documents from that era. Many Greek and Roman histories were written down decades or even centuries after the events occurred, yet secular historians gladly accept them as being generally accurate. Contradictions between different sources were also common, especially when the accounts were passed down orally for decades before actually being transcribed (such as with the Gospels). If anything, these contradictions just go to show that the resurrection of Jesus could not have been a coordinated attempt between the writers of the Gospels at manufacturing a story, as some skeptics proclaim it to be (because a coordinated attempt would be more internally consistent). I have provided four separate, authentic, generally reliable sources, each of which independently confirms that the resurrection of Jesus occurred. Pro cites a random blog to show that "only about 5% of the Roman Empire was Christian", but compare that to my source, which is relatively reputable and cites a number of primary sources throughout it confirming that Christianity was quite widespread. It is clear that my source should be trusted over his source. The fact that Christianity became so popular so quickly adds credence to the claim that a miracle like the resurrection actually did happen. As for the Council of Nicea, that literally has nothing to do with anything with my original argument. The point is that the Christian faith depends on Jesus being the Messiah, and without a miracle like the resurrection, no one would have continued believing that Jesus was the Messiah. Thus, in addition to the recorded evidence from the Gospels, we also have a sound deductive basis to believe that the resurrection did happen. == Negating Evolution == Pro asks me describe a specific metaphorical interpretation of Genesis, but that is an absurd request which has nothing to do with my argument. The whole point was that Christians are free to take whatever meaning they want from the Bible's stories, or they can even completely reject those stories. It doesn't matter. The Bible doesn't have any official influence over Christianity, so it does not need to be taken literally, and thus Christians do not have to deny evolution. ******* The Christian faith remains affirmed...