The Bible God Does Not Exist

Immediately, there are problems with my opponent's syllogism. He provides an invalid argument, which is therefore unsound. Premise 2 clearly does not follow from the first premise. Given the definition of omnipotence, how does it follow that one cannot have control over God because of that? Moreover, there are unstated premises in my opponent's argument and his conclusion does not follow at all given his current premises. Though I can understand what my opponent is getting at, his argument itself does not do the job. At best what my opponent was attempting to show was that God is not omnipotent. He needs to explain that omnipotence is a necessary part of God's nature and if he can show that God doesn't have that in his nature, then he has disproven God's existence. Unfortunately, my opponent's argument does not do the job. Here I did my best to present a more charitable formulation of my opponent’s argument 1. The God of the Bible is supposedly omnipotent. 2. If God is omnipotent, then he can bring about whatever he wants; 3. God's creations can frustrate bringing about what he wants. 4. Therefore, God is not omnipotent. 5. Therefore, the Bible God does not exist (because 4 contradicts 1) In this case premise 2 is not true. This stems from a misunderstanding of omnipotence. In addition to my opponent’s definition of omnipotence, I’d like to add clear up what is meant by “God can do anything” and add a secondary definition. First, God can do anything that is logically possible. In other words, God cannot make logical contradictions (square circles, married bachelors, etc. ). Saying God can do anything is a bit ambiguous and it can be extrapolated to mean something like God can make a square circle. Philosopher Richard Swinburne briefly reiterates this point by writing, “The analysis of omnipotence which initially suggests itself is that a being is omnipotent if and only if he can do any (logically possible) action. ” [1] This in no way impedes God’s omnipotence or makes God any less than He was. This is captured in the common logical blunder thrown at God’s omnipotence: Can God make a stone so heavy He cannot lift? In order for this to be the case, God would need to create a rock that is infinitely heavy in order to defeat his infinite power. This is pure nonsense. Moreover, as I’ve pointed out previously this question is based on a false idea. Namely, that God can do anything He wants. The Existence of the Christian God I'd like to now present a positive case for the existence of the Christian God. Here is a simple hypothetical syllogism: 1) If Jesus rose from the dead, then the Christian God exists 2) Jesus rose from the dead C: Therefore the Christian God exists Premise 1 This premise appears undeniable. Christians believe that God the Father rose Jesus from the dead. If Jesus indeed rose from the dead, it's evident that it was God the father who did it. Premise 2Here is where the real discussion begins. It's highly attested by historians that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person who was crucified by the Romans. [2] Gary Habermas notes, "the vast majority of scholars, both conservative and liberal alike, generally disdain radical theses that question the very existence of Jesus. " [3] There are four main points/pieces of evidence regarding the resurrection: the empty tomb, the existence of the early Church, the origin of the disciple’s beliefs, and the post resurrection appearances. The Empty Tomb Matthew 28:11-15, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12, and John 20:11-18 all attest to the empty tomb. Because of such an event as the resurrection, the location of Jesus’ tomb would have been well known. An event such as the crucifixion of Jesus, a man who was well known for his deeds and despised by the Jewish authorities because of his controversy, would have attracted an enormous amount of attention. Furthermore, the Bible mentions the fact that Roman guards were placed in charge of guarding the tomb. This leads us to believe that Roman authorities were definitely aware of the location of the tomb. Matthew 28:11-15 describes the first Jewish Polemic to try and cover up and explain the missing body. The Jewish leaders didn’t deny that the tomb was empty; they simply explained it away by saying the disciples stole the body. Even the given Jewish Polemic assumes the tomb is empty. Origin of Disciple’s Beliefs and the early church The origin of the disciple’s belief, post resurrection appearances and the formation of the early church are all closely interrelated. What could account for the origin of the disciple’s beliefs? With the death of Jesus, many during that time period had good reasons for thinking “the whole movement which [Jesus] had led was suppressed for good. ” [4] The savior of the world was crucified and killed, taken away to a guarded tomb, and Jewish authorities were out to squander any remnants of Jesus’ followers. Scripture tells us that the disciples saw the risen Jesus. Today, virtually no New Testament scholar denies that the disciple’s believed they met with the risen savior. [5] There are numerous appearances recorded in scripture where Jesus appeared to individuals and groups—Simon Peter, two disciples on the Road to Emmaus, the eleven, Mary Magdalene, and James to name a few. Jesus also appeared to non-believers such as His brother James and Saul (Paul), who was a persecutor of Christians. Paul had no disposition towards believing the Christians or wanting Jesus to rise from the dead because he was on the opposite side of the fence. Moreover, the fact that the Gospels include Mary Magdalene as a witness adds further credibility to the testimonial evidence, because if there was any doubt that she was lying, during that time women's testimony was not accepted as being credible. The disciple’s believed so strongly that they saw the risen Jesus that they were willing to suffer terrible deaths for this belief. It was this belief that set the foundation for the early Christian Church. The events recorded in Acts—the disciples preaching the resurrection— are said to have happened immediately within weeks of the resurrection event. J. P. Moreland lends some support to this by stating, “many scholars agree that the seven week time frame between the crucifixion and the first preaching of the resurrection in Jerusalem is historically accurate. ”[6] If the disciple’s made up the resurrection, it would have been foolish to spread the conspiracy so close in time to the events since their plot would have been easily foiled by the authorities simply producing the body of Jesus. It would be best to wait for the commotion to die down before spreading the “conspiracy. ” Now, I’d be the first to say that just because the disciple’s claimed they saw the risen Jesus doesn’t mean He actually rose from the dead. What I’m claiming is the events and effects that transpired after the crucifixion can only best be explained by the resurrection of Jesus. What makes the best sense of the empty tomb, the post resurrection appearances, the disciple’s belief and the early church? So far, many of the objections to the resurrection that I've seen haven't carried too much weight. I will withhold from discussing possible objections so I can allow my opponent to bring them forward. See comments for sources