Christianity v Atheism

My opponent is also attempting to shift his claims to monotheism. I won't allow it because the resolution is "Christianity versus Atheism." I was providing arguments for a God that is mentioned in the Old Testament because his non-existence would stop Jesus' claims of being divinely provided by him would make no sense without a God of the Old Testament. I stated at the beginning of my comments that I was proving that Jesus was who he claimed to be and I would have thought people would be intelligent enbough to realize this involves proving God exists as well, so my opponents self-pitying claims I am only defending monotheism are obviously untrue. "How do you know that energy and matter have not always existed? How do you know how reality functioned before the Big Bang too? The Big Bang is merely a theory, not an authoritative fact." Theories in science are things backed up by physical evidence, not non-authoritative facts. As to why we must have one God rather than multiple gods, that is posited because of Occam's Razor. "How do you know morals exist? The concept is metaphysical." Metaphysical claims can be proven logically as I have attempted to do in my moral argument. It's up to voters to decide whether I have done that or not. "Our senses do not confirm the existence of morals. Our senses however, do confirm the existence of rapport since homosapiens sympathize with each other as they know more about each other[1]. Do you cry every time someone is killed in Russia, Nigeria, or some distant foreign land? No, that is because you do not have any rapport with those people. If you have morals about it is wrong for someone to be killed. You should feel the same way about a murder in New York City and a murder in Rio de Janeiro. You probably won't feel the same way because you lack the necessary identication with those people to build an equal rapport. You won't feel the same way when a stranger is killed compared to a friend or family member due to rapport.Our senses do not relate to morals but rapport. Morals are abstract concepts." Just because one is amoral about something which one does not sense no more proves moral values are subjective than not seeing something from miles away proves are physical senses are subjective. This counter-argument is completely able to be reconciled with objective morality. "Moral subjectivism does not assert the "rightness" or "wrongness" of actions. Only moral objectivism can assert the "rightness" and "wrongness" of an action." Rightness and wrongness place obligations on you to act rightly and/or wrongly. That's a basic theory in ethical philosophy. " Moral subjectivism exists in practice and in reality." Bare assertion. " It is not a matter whether my opponent or I think moral subjectivism is pleasant." But it is a matter for a philosophy of ethics. " My opponent and I can state killing is wrong, theft is wrong, rape is wrong, and etc. but people will still do it regardless of what my opponent or I think. " This just proves people have not encountered moral standards yet. If I haven't seen a lighthouse before I may not know what it is when I look at it but it doesn't show my senses cannot detect lighthouses. "Moral objectivity may be our personal truths but it is not a fact in the real world with other people where different moral standards are observable". Sure different behaviours are observable, but most people still feel in their hearts that there is a correct way to act and behave. "My opponent must also show how a moral obligation definitively exists." https://en.wikipedia.org.... Ethics accepts there are moral oughts, the question is how well the moral philosophy encompasses them. To my mind, objective morality makes more sense of ethical philosophy than does subjective morality. "I am tossing out the Gospels out as potentially inaccurate resources due to none of them being written by Jesus, someone that met Jesus, or someone that interviewed people who knew Jesus. None of the Gospels were written during Jesus' lifetime. The first one written was fifty years after his death. We must assume, that the Gospels will have inaccuracies as a result of being a secondary source. Then on top of that many of the Gospels are Christian propaganda pieces as well which leaves biases rather than a historical narrative to be taken seriously. The letters of Paul were also Christian propaganda written by a devout Christian apostle not a scholar, not an annalist, and certainly not a historian. The Gospels nor the letters of Paul should be taken as historically accurate considering the intent of the authors." The early drafts of the Gospels and Paul's oral tradition relay those four facts I have mentioned. Look at the QMark source for example. They agree with my facts, those were definitely written within the generations that knew Jesus. There is no evidence they are conspiracy pieces, either archaeological or otherwise, as most New Testament scholars admit.[1] Footnotes [1] (Journal of the American Academy of Religion 68 [2000]: 171)