On balance, theism is more plausible than naturalism.

In this debate, I'm taking the Pro side in Devil's advocacy. Many of my fellow atheists disregard theism without adequately understanding it. This is a mistake. In recent times, brilliant minds have applied analytic philosophy to Christian theology, creating an incredibly sophisticated and nuanced worldview. Owing to the their efforts, it has experienced a renaissance in contemporary philosophical circles. ============ Reformed epistemology ============ There are three common responses to the Regress Problem in modern philosophy: coherentism, infinitism, and foundationalism.[1] I'll be defending foundationalism, which holds that in order for knowledge to be possible, our inferences must ultimately rest on certain basic beliefs that cannot themselves be proven, but are accepted as self-evident. Foundational beliefs require warrant, which separates knowledge from mere true belief. For example, on a multiple choice test, I may guess from several options that Sacramento is the capitol of California. I may also believe that my answer is true, but such belief does not have proper warrant inasmuch as guessing is not a sound epistemic means of attaining knowledge. Reformed epistemology is an externalist form of reliabilism that holds beliefs have warrant just in case they are produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties.[2] We know that on naturalism, unguided evolution shaped our brains *not* for the purpose of producing true beliefs, but as a mere tool to aid survival and reproduction. By contrast, on theism there is good reason to think that our minds *were* designed to produce sound understanding. Moreover, the most people take the existence of God as self-evident. Thus, *if* Christianity is true, it probably has warrant even in absence of a good argument or conclusive evidence. Note that this isn't an argument for the existence of God, but a defense of the inherent rationality and plausibility of Christian belief. ============ Cosmological argument ============ Alexander Pruss of Baylor university has formulated a modern version of the Leibnizian cosmological argument, which is in turn based on Aquinas' "Third Way." (1) Every contingent fact has an explanation. (2) There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts. (3) Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact. (4) This explanation must involve a necessary being. (5) This necessary being is God. Premise 1 is based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). This means that no state of affairs can obtain, nor can any proposition be true unless there is a sufficient causal or explanatory reason why it should not be otherwise. Steps 2-3, this fact is a conjunction of all other contingent facts, which Pruss calls the "Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact," or BCCF. It follows from the observation that an infinite chain of contingent facts still can't yield a complete explanation, nor can complete explanations be derived from a causal or explanatory loop. This works in the same way that 0+0 is still 0. Step 4, the explanation for this fact must be a necessary fact. A conjunction of all contingent facts can't be explained by another contingent fact because this explanans would be a conjunct of the explanandum, resulting in the conjuncton explaining itself, which is logically impossible. Moreover, conceptual explanations are causally impotent, while scientific explanations invoking the laws of nature again fall under the explanandum. The explanation must be either a necessarily occurring event or a necessarily existing substance; but there are no events that occur without substances; events happen to substances, so we are committed to the existence of both. The only type of cause we know of that fits these criteria is that of a volitional agent. Step 5, Et hoc omnes intelligunt Deum (and this everyone understands to be God). ============ Teleological argument ============ The physical constants of the universe must fall within extremely precise ranges in order to permit life. Just one example: according to Stephen Hawking, if the relationship between the competing effects of explosive expansion and gravitational contraction during Plank time deviated in their ratio from unity by just one part in 10e60, the universe would have either re-collapsed in on itself or expanded too rapidly for stars to form.[3] A probability statement looks like this: P(X|Y), or the the probability of X on condition of Y. Let "T" represent the fact that many physical constants must fall within precise ranges in order to permit the life of embodied moral agents of the sort that can form meaningful relationships with each other and potentially with God, "L" is the observation that the universe contains such life, and "D" is the proposition that there exists a divine creator. Thus, P(L|T&D) is the probability that sentient life exists on the condition that the universe must be finely tuned and there is a divine creator. P(L|T&~D) is the probability that life exists when there is *no* supernatural designer. Baye's Rule explains how to revise in light of new evidence the probabilities assigned to competing hypotheses.[4] We know that on naturalism, the chances that the universe would be life-permitting are virtually non-existent. The example I gave earlier is only one of the many variables that must fall within exact ranges, such as the nuclear strong and weak forces, electromagnetism, the number of spatial dimensions, etc. To find out how likely it is there is a divine creator, the following formula is used: P(D|L&T) = P(L|D&T) x P(D|T) / P(L|T&~D) Which, even without using precise values, yields the conclusion that it is overwhelmingly likely that God exists. ============ The historical Jesus ============ Many skeptics mistakenly believe the Gospels accounts are historically unreliable religious texts, however, this view is unsupported by contemporary New Testament scholarship. On the contrary, they are written in the genre Ancient Greek Biography, similar to the works of well known historians of the time like Plutarch, Tacitus, and Suetonius.[5] Additionally, they are very early accounts written while the eyewitnesses to the events were still living. By contrast, the majority of our Greek and Roman history was recorded 1-2 generations, or even centuries after the events occurred.[6] We know with near certainty that Jesus was crucified on Good Friday by the Romans. He died and was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. In addition to the Gospels, we have early and independent attestation to this from I Cor 15:3-5. On the following Sunday, the tomb was discovered empty and Jesus subsequently made numerous appearances to various different people. Even Gert Lï¿½demann, a prominent critic of the resurrection admits "it may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."[7] In order to account for these facts, yet avoid the conclusion that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, secularists have had to turn to unfounded and often bizarre alternatives, like the swoon hypothesis, or that the disciples stole the body from the tomb. Most of these theories fail to account for certain relevant factors and have thus been rejected by the vast majority of New Testament scholars, however, I'll wait for my opponent to outline his own view before I criticize any of these ideas in depth. || CONCLUSION || In the absence of defeaters, Christian belief enjoys warrant. In order to win this point, my opponent will have to provide an alternative, superior theory of epistemic justification. Additionally, I've given several powerful arguments that build a cumulative case for the existence of God and enhance the predictive power of theism. The resolution is affirmed. References: http://tinyurl.com...