Theism (Pro) vs. Naturalism (Con)

Actually, if supernatural events happened, they wouldn't need supernatural explanations to show theism (which would be possible) more likely than naturalism (impossible).Isaiah The argument's not an appeal to tradition. Let’s say we’re in the 6th century, the time in which Chapters 44 and 45 (the chapters mentioning Cyrus) were written. Mankind has had the “authentic” Book of Isaiah (i.e., Chapters 1–39) at least a century and a half. All of the sudden someone adds 16 or 27 chapters to it. If someone now would add 16–27 chapters to a book written in the 19th century, it would be noticed and acknowledged. The Book of Nehemiah was merged to scrolls of the Book of Ezra, but it was clear that they were two separate writings. All we get for Isaiah is that the introduction dates the book to a time period encompassing 788–687 B.C., giving no indication that such only applies to the first 39 chapters. In Con’s illustration, we know that Genesis was written before Revelation because such was clarified; although we have multiple books composed to form the Bible, distinctions are made showing the books were made by different authors at different times—exactly what we don’t have with Isaiah! Con said 100 B.C. was “plenty of time for Isaiah to be unified and accepted as one book.” However, the writings before its alleged unification would only be a few centuries old. While this at first appears long, we have writings (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves) that are over 20 centuries old. In the same way, the 2nd-century-BC-to-1st-century-AD writers (e.g., the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, etc.) would have had access to the old Isaiah scrolls that only had 39 chapters and the external sources which mention the author(s) of Chapters 40–66; this would be true if such writings existed, anyway. But they didn’t know of such writings—none of the ancient writers! My referencing Josephus (who refers to both Isaiah [in Book 11, Chapter 1:1–2] and Daniel [Chapter 8:5]) was not necessarily to focus on whether Cyrus read the prophecy or not (though I did bring it up as an extra note); I was adding him to the list of references. I could also mention the Septuagint, written 300–200 B.C.,[1][2] and all preR08;11th century writings we have. If Isaiah wrote only the first 39 Chapters, how come none of the ancient writers know about it? Con provides the reasons why higher critics come up with the dueteroR08; or tritoR08;Isaiah theory. However, all these reasons are subjective and/or inconsistent, inconsistent because the same criteria could apply to passages everyone agrees Isaiah wrote. These kind of arguments are much weaker than the hard historical evidence as well as the internal evidence saying the book had one author. For example, Con mentions that the writing after Chapter 39 speaks as if the events are presumed rather than speaking as if they were going to happen. However, as I already mentioned, this is a literary device done to show that the prophet is so certain the prophecy will be fulfilled that they speak as if it already happened, known as the prophetic perfect tense.[3] To also show its inconsistency, Isaiah 5:13 (“Therefore my people have gone into captivity …” [emphasis added]), as well as 10:28–32, speak of events as if they already happened, and yet everyone agrees these passages were written long before the time they happened. Con also claims that “the general literary style is different.” Con failed to explain in what way the wording is different. The Book was written “in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah” (1:1), a time period of at the very least 30 years (assuming it was the last year of Uzziah’s reign to the first year of Hezekiah’s).[4] Surely Isaiah’s writing style could have changed during this time period. In fact, our writing style probably already changed since Round 2 of this debate, let alone since what it would be 30 years from now! Con says “there was small pockets of idol worship during and after exile,” but is Isaiah 57:5–8 addressing “small pockets of idol worship”? No, it speaks of the people “Inflaming [themselves] with gods under every green tree” (v. 5, emphasis added). Idolatry is also discussed in 45:16; 46:1–4; 48:5; 57:13, etc. Books before the destruction of Babylon and rebuilding of the temple deal with idolatry; the books after (Haggai, Zechariah, Ezra, Nehemiah and Malachi) don’t.[5][6] Which does Isaiah sound more like? The former. Also, the books before were written in pure Hebrew; the books after were not.[5][7] Which category does Isaiah sound like? The former, not the latter. Finally, Con says that the prophecies I mentioned are so accurate that they must have been written after they happened, as this allegedly would be simpler than assuming a supernatural prophecy did happen. Yet, a text describing an event in so much detail that it had to have been written after in order for it to be natural is yet another inconsistent criterion. Isaiah contains another supernatural prophecy concerning Babylon in Chapter 13, known as “The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw” (v. 1). It prophesied that Babylon would be destroyed by the Medes (vv. 17–18) and that Babylon would not be inhabited “from generation to generation” (v. 20). While Cyrus the great was a Persian, he also was a Mede, due to his mother.[8] This and the fact that he combined Media and Persia to create a MedoR08;Persian empire (discussed in Round 2) show that the Medes also destroyed Babylon in 539 B.C., fulfilling the first point. Later, the city became abandoned and has not been inhabited for centuries[9][10] fulfilling the second point. This is a supernatural prophecy, and yet everyone agrees that Isaiah wrote it at least a century and a half before even the first part was fulfilled. (Note: Since this prophecy was not brought up in Round 2, I cannot use this as an argument directly to prove the existence of God. I’m instead using it to debunk the view that a prophecy’s authorship/date must be changed if a failure to do so would result in the abolition of naturalism.) Thus, all the reasons for a change in authorship are subjective and/or inconsistent. Daniel Con says that our earliest manuscript of the Book of Daniel dates to 125 B.C. This means that our oldest manuscript is approximately 2,140 years old. Yet, this manuscript would only be 40 years after the time Daniel was supposedly written! Daniel, according to the secular, higher critics, was written approximately 165 B.C.![11] And yet, this recent manuscript dates itself to “the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar” (v.1), or about 553 B.C.! Con also argues that the Book of Daniel wasn’t in the Hebrew canon. More accurately, the argument goes thus: “The Hebrew canon consists of three divisions, the ‘Law’, the ‘Prophets’ and the ‘Writings’, and Daniel is included in the third and last divisions. This suggests that the book was not known by 200 B.C. ...”[12] However, this argument is weak and assumes that the liberal scholars are right. “Most conservative Old Testament scholars believe that Daniel was not placed among the prophets in our present Hebrew Bible because he served in a foreign court, did not prophesy directly to the people of Israel, and included much historical material in the book. But, significant evidence is available that Daniel was originally counted among the prophets and was only shifted to another category of canonical books of Hebrew scribes in the fourth century A.D.”[13] Con also points out that the Nabonidus chronicle exists during the time I said Belshazzar was unknown. I admit that I was wrong. Resurrection All we have for the moonR08;splitting miracle is that the Quran (and one other source) tells us there were eyewitnesses. As for Jim Jones, Con’s own source says, “Others deny Jones’ ability in its entirety, insisting instead that he used manipulative but ultimately transparent methods to give temporary comfort to the susceptible and to draw in the vulnerable.” Con’s reference to Sri Sathya Sai Baba was too general a citation for me to verify. First Corinthians 15:3–8, however, was written to Corinth, and they could verify it. Many of the 500, for example, were still alive at this time (v. 6). Even secular scholars believe that this happened. They agree that entire groups of people saw Jesus; they disagree that what they saw was what was true. You failed, Con, to posit a theory more likely than Jesus’ resurrection that would at the same time be naturalistic. Bart Ehrman, for example, argues that there were group visions (basically hallucinations)[15]—but this itself would be supernatural, as I can’t be in a vision with you. And what’s more likely? A miracle happening once (viz., Jesus’ resurrection) or a miracle happening multiple times (viz., group visions happening multiple times, to the 500 and to the apostles, for example)? Please present a theory simpler than the resurrection, yet one that doesn’t go against the evidence scholars nearly unanimously agree on. Cosmological argument (skeptic’s addition) Con said eternalism is the view that all states of time exist eternally. However, all I’ve ever read was that eternalism is the theory that “all points in time are equally real.”[16][17] This definition better fits the movie reel illustration. All time now exists, yet all of time was created. (Note: I’m not necessarily sure eternalism is true. There are arguments against it, but I need not bring them up so long as eternalism doesn’t contradict God). Con also said, “[I]f God is omniscient, then all states of time must exist for as long as God has existed.” This assumes eternalism is incompatible with God, which whether true or false is a burden Con must prove. Yes, God exists before time—in the sense I’ve said it, that He’s outside of and unaffected by time. When you said He couldn’t exist before time, you meant it in a sense that He would be affected by it, arguing that “there couldn’t have been a ‘before’ the universe.”