Belief vs. Disbelief in the Christian God: Smith_87 vs. Silent Dave

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between Smith_87 and Silent Dave who will debate the following question:

"Is belief or disbelief in the Christian God more reasonable?"

Smith_87 will argue the case for belief and Silent Dave will argue the case for disbelief. The debate will have 4 rounds and posts will be submitted concurrently, per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2759872&postcount=96).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=138940) is set up in the Existence of God(s) forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Good luck to both participants!

- NS, FD Moderator

[Smith_87]

Introduction:

Greetings! First of all, I would first like to Thank IIDB forums for their warm welcome, as well as allow me the opportunity to carry out this very important debate. I also appreciate Nightshade for his patience during the set up process and Dave for accepting my invitation. I am hoping that everyone will be able to recognize my very innovated, yet sound perspectives and illustrations on this issue in which will surely show that a belief in "God" is more than reasonable.

I also encourage skeptical spectators to truly be receptive to my side of the argument just as well as Dave's. I always enjoy this little parable:

The eyes of the naive are gullible, everything to them appears with validity
The eyes of the skeptical are stubborn, nothing to them appears without flaw

The eyes of the Wise are truth, they weigh both sides of the arguments to draw their conclusion

Proposal:

- To prove the fallaciousness of Atheism
- To prove the undeniable fact of the existence of "God".
- To prove how Jesus of Nazareth directly relates to "God"

These are the three objectives I plan on achieving during this debate. First of all, I find it best to prove the validity of God by revealing the faults of the alternative.


I. Case Against Atheism

A. Defining Atheism

NOUN: 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. {1}

Atheism has never succeeded in disproving God. Following the accepting of this knowledge, they have formulated two of their own definitions of strong atheism (accurate definition of atheism), as well as the newly adjusted weak atheism. This distorted definition is defined as a "lack of belief" in which is grammatically contradicting for these two reasons:

1) The concept of a belief has nothing to do with capacity whatsoever. You simply can't 'somewhat' believe in something, or contain 15% of a belief. If you claimed, "I'm not sure this is right" or "I'm pretty sure this is a logical belief, but short on a few facts"; this represents the notion of uncertainty or doubt. However, both these meanings are inappropriate in the context of a self declared title. Basically, if my opponent declared "I am an atheist", and inserted the weak atheism concept into that statement, the translation of "I am a 'lacker' in the belief of God" would be the incoherent solution. It could not possibly translate into "I lack belief in God", because the word lack modifies belief in the same sense as if I said "I am full of faith", full would modify faith. Therefore, I could be called "faithful", which could not take part in a sentence without a noun to which is must modify (I must be "faithful" to something). Thus, the declarative statement must translate to "I am faithful/faithless to modern religious beliefs" in order to be sound. This concludes that a "lack of belief" (in it's own error) can not possiably be used as a declaritive noun (atheism).

2) Neither a proper and improper nouns can not be congregated with a conjunction such as 'without' or 'with'. For example, if my opponent stated he was "without a belief in God", therefore he is atheist. Dave would be distorting sound grammar. To simply put it, someone who is declaring "I am without a belief in God" can also be used in the same context as "I am without a hotdog". Obviously, one who is without a hotdog can not translate into a noun because I would be the subject and without a hotdog would be the predicate. In other words, if someone was without a belief in God, "without a belief in God" would modify whether than title that person.

B. Atheism is it's Own Belief

A belief is a cognitive mental acceptance or rejection (consciously or subconsciously) of a concept in which one holds as valid or true. Beliefs can not be taken, but must be logically always be replaced. One who is theist believes there is God, and therefore disbelieves in atheism; as an atheist believes that there is no God, and therefore disbelieves in theism. Thus, "atheism" is in fact, it's own belief no more or less than theism.
Therefore, that belief must bare just as much of a case as any theist is required. This is quite an essential factor to this debate. As I will now follow up the other misleading conceptions of the atheistic belief.

C. Evidence for Fallacy

Atheism contains an abundance of misleading and rhetoric reasoning. Here are a few examples:

1) Fallacy of "Weak Atheism"

Though I previously covered this fault by means of grammar. However, I can not let go of how many different times atheism has infected countless mindless debates with highly ill concept. "Weak atheism" is nothing more than merely an excuse for atheists to criticize the beliefs of others, while hypocritically withholding beliefs of their own. The unjust consequence of this deception, is a one-sided argument that leaves the theist open to exposure in which gives atheists a sense of invulnerability of critique during the process of a debate. In short, this corrupted "excuse" dramatically deludes the objectives of the debate.

2) Fallacy of "Evidence"

The "burden of proof" states that one who makes a claim is obligated to provide rational evidence in order to draw a conclusion. Sounds reasonable enough, correct?

Well, let's say I claimed something such as "God is true". You would now have to make a conscious decision whether to accept, disregard, doubt, or oppose that claim. If you quickly accepted it, you may simply be gullible. If you disregarded or choose not to concern yourself with that statement, you could not draw conclusion whether it is true or false. Therefore, you would be naive in any realm of knowledge concerning God.

However, if you doubted or opposed my statement; you are now making a claim of your own. If someone claims a premise to be either false or even possibly false, than that claim in itself is yet another premise. If my opponent doubted by rebuking "there is not enough evidence". Then you have created a premise that must configure a precise definition for what "evidence" is and clearly define the satisfying amount of this "evidence" required to sufficiently conclude my premise to be reasonable valid. If this definition is not clearly established, the formulated debate will again be corrupted, and lead to a number of misconceptions which would be caused by the fault of such a vague premise.

By the way, only a premise that directly opposes my premise (There is no God) has the authority to actually disprove God. A premise that claims God may not exist can only prove just that. (God may or may not exist) No more, no less. Even though such a premise would be seemly pointless because it can't draw definite conclusions.

3) Fallacy of "Fiction"

Fiction is the conscious or unconscious mental act in which human rearranges various concepts of attributes and properties into a combination that contradicts with previous experience or reality (the consistent arrangement of matter and energy whether human perspective is present or not).

When someone usually recalls ancient mythological gods such Zeus or Mars, they instantaneously link such notions to be "false". Atheists use this notion to through off and deceive an audience to believe that "gods" demonstrate valid reasoning and somehow disprove God. This form of fallacy appears by taking fiction, mythology, and religion completely out of context.

Instead of thinking of ancient mythological culture as just 'primitive' societies. Be careful not to take out of consideration that these cultures had a lot of time to ponder the meaning of life, truth, and purpose instead of sitting back with Sony flat screen television sets. Many ancient societies applied the use of human concepts (various images, entities, characters) in order to illustrate reasoning behind what we know today to be "natural phenomenon".

For example, Greek mythology used illustrations to explain events like the four seasons. Science on the other hand, used superior logic and reasoning to precisely explain all necessary components of how our planet circles the sun. Yet, both of these explanations acknowledge that the four seasons exists, correct? Science simply defines or illistrate the four seasons much more clearly then the use of various human concepts.

Why is it that so many individuals today look at our seasons and look with such apathy? Is it really because science has discovered how the seasons operate in such tremendous detail, that we should now simply take our seasons for granted? Write it off as "natural phenomenon" and leave it as so? Why not appreciate nature more than the Greeks who had no clue of just how complex nature truly is?

Another misconception that atheists usally do not clarify, is that mythology and religion are concepts that are separated from science. While science is growing in knowledge with laws and theories used to explain how nature works and coordinates by means of observation, logic, and experimentation. Religion appears to illustrate the bigger picture behind scientific discovaries that varies from culture to culture. Putting this together, it is obvious how atheism poorly defines mythological and fictional entities.

For example, the concept of "Santa Clause" represents an entity that illustrates a man who travels by a sled flying into the sky while delivering presents to small children. However, anyone who possesses the most elementary of reasoning capabilities, is able to analyze and comprehend that "Santa Clause" is nothing more than a concept created by modern traditional parents. For no greater reasoning than to offer an entertaining theme for illustrating the Christmas holiday in a suitable manner for children. It is plainly obvious how this concept has absolutely no relevance to God. Therefore, no matter the concept for a premise, each must be carefully examined and defined in order to obtain a valid conclusion.

D. Psychological Argument against Humanistic Philosophy

According to the mind of an atheist, humans have no practical explanation as to why they sense what they sense. Their actions are rooted to how they behave by short sighted observation.

Think of how a three year old boy mentally rationalizes as he picks up a toy block and examines it. The young child simply perceives the block as it is. The child is unable to perceive logical solutions to why the block gives him the sensation that he senses when he picks the object up, nor does he wonder what the object is meant for, thus uses the block in such a fashion in which satisfies or entertain him for a limited duration of time or until the thrill of the activity dies.

Atheists or any human that denies or is careless in acknowledging the reason or motivation of it's own existence, is a human that will simply to live moment to moment according to what pleases it (E.L. Thorndikes's law of effect {2}). This makes such a human to be extremely predictable. Like a dog coming back for it's favorite treat. If a human observes a positive consequence it will always continue to gain that consequence.

If you are able to throw a baseball at 90 mph in the display of pubic, and the results includes many other humans praising you with a positive response of awe and impression, you're will now more than likily seek to become one of the next baseball superstars. Simply no different from any other creature that with or without a cognitive mind processes.

Also according to this rejection, increased traits found in mental events strived by other mammals which lead to as pain, pleasure, disappointment and fear are felt through lacking a state of alertness in one's consciousness. this brings the mind to conclude that life should be as what is strictly perceived by what is observed by their immediate environment according to what that human's perceives to be pleasurable. (in which case they are subconsciously and ironically, being controlled by their own environment in which dictates what consequence gives them pleasure or pain and forfeits what can be revealed through conscious effort of and consistent and realistic purpose). Thus, leads to a delusion that true satisfaction is found through what is temporary pleasing consequences (what is there) which contains no necessisary objective.

An example of this would be someone who lives solely for the satisfaction of the acceptance of other humans. If many humans accept that person, they will feel a sense of popularity, if many humans reject that person, they will feel a sense of dislike or rejection. However, that human has fooled itself either way. Both popularity and rejection are vague concepts that can be no more than formulated into an opinion (or a conclusion drawn by vague inference). Thus, these consequences are both inconsistent and don't add to any logical sense of purpose in one's own state of being (Some people will accept you, some will not. It's all based on opinion). Yet, so many everyday human beings subconsciously strive for this one objective which governs the basis for why they behave or personify themselves as they do. This summerizes all of what life would be composed of. A diffuse and inconsistent series of sensations in between sensations and lacking any actual central principle to make sense of it all!

This quote from Dr. William Lane Craig during his debate with Dr. Washington, sums up my arguments best as he describes the complete analysis of the human race without God:

"...if there is no God, then what's so special about human beings? They're just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on a infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth, lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe, and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time."{3}


II. Case for God

A. Defining "God"

Although Science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it can not answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist? Maybe only God can answer that.
-Stephen W. Hawking {4}

God is an extraordinary phenomenon of infinite proportions. God is the variable necessary to conclude the origin and operations of all energy and existence. Not to mention created creation (energy in forms of matter which we see all around us) itself! God conformed the origin of all matter into various (natural as we often call them) processes essential to cause expansion and complexion needed to produce such swift and astonishing astrophysical results. If you choose to throw away the concept of God out when formulating the universe, you might as well throw out logic and rationalization while your at it.

B. Explanation for Science

Sciencecan basically be defined as the study of observation. Science is divided into various fields of a particular area of tangible (of reality) concepts in which can be observed, tested and concluded. Examples would include biology, oceanography, geology, or physics.

Logic and reasoning are abstract (relating to reality) concepts produced by the cognitive process of the human mind. These concepts are used to link or connect numerous variables of observed information into rational formation. Examples would include mathematics, language, or any other means of interpreting or illustrating information relating to reality.

Such concepts as intelligence, wisdom and knowledge are all notions of awareness. You can measure how 'smart' a person is by how aware they are of reality (which I previously defined). A baby may not be thought of as intelligent, due to it's lack of awareness and experience in reality or someone who dances off a fifty foot high balcony may also seem very unintelligent or even 'crazy', because that person has done an action which brings about a very harmful consequence. Another example to summerize, would be cosmologist who is well aware of the universe and can reasonably infer various observations that so happend to match consistingly well when placed in the context of reality.

With this in mind, we can now acknowledge that the human mind "infers" information through observation. However, this brings up the question why is what we observe, what we observe? Science can only define what can be grasped through observation relating to reality, but why do various forms of energy manifest into such magnificent designs of matter (such as mountains, oceans, biological organisms, stars). How does nature itself decide which form it takes? Furthermore, how does it decide the laws in which it abides by without some kind of designer?

C. Argument of Thermodynamics

When you think you of something being made or designed, you more than likely picture a human designing some sort of structure such as a building or spider creating a web. Yet, ironically a human being has never made anything. Technically, they have only rearrange or manipulated matter and energy accordance to behavior. As stated in the law of conservation, Nothing is now coming into existence or going out of existence; matter and energy may be converted into one another, but there is no net increase in the combined total of what exists.

According to the second law of thermodynamics: every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work or the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Biochemist Dr. Isaac Asimov illustrates this concept in this manner:

“Another way of stating the second law is this: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.� {5}

Keeping this scientific law in mind, I ask my opponent, how is energy able to concentrate into a complicated forms of matter such as planets, stars, and biological life (not too mention maintain stability in formation) if all energy wants to do is distort and disperse? How do such phenomenal events such as the existence of life become reality?

Many believe that universe and biologic life "self-started". However, the second law clearly states that energy tends to break down instead of start up. Energy does not naturally build, but instead breaks down. Basically, every form of matter is finite and can not be composed into an elaborated formation without aid of some kind of phenomena. Thus, there must be a presence of a "nonfinite" (infinite) entity in which directs or guides ("organize") energy. If my opponent wishes to disprove my statement, he must prove that energy molded "itself" from a bang to a protogalaxy. Otherwise, the variable of God is absolutely a necessity in formulating complex compositions of matter. If there is ever one tangible entity which we can safely describe as being "designed"; unanimously, it must be the creation of the universe. Otherwise, the enitre universe results into a self-contradicting and senseless composition!

D. Argument of Consciousness

"Consciousness" is most mysterious phenomenon that has yet to be fathomed. It is the ability in which no other known specie possesses with the exclusive exception of the human being.

This is what the ability of consciousness allows:

- Allows humans the ability to amass and store a multitude of different observations; or memorize.

- Allows humans to illustrate or infer various masses of memories simultaneously which produce concepts (Example: a human senses a four-legged and furry creature through sight, and uses the word "dog" to infer the multiple observed attributes.)

- Allows humans to configure numerous concepts to a spectacular extent that lead to the production of highly complex formation of concepts (cognitive attributes) such as ideas, choices, and thoughts are then obtained.

- Ideas, choices, and thoughts enables humans the power to produce such results as human emotions (happiness, sadness, anger), freewill ,beliefs, fantasy, and intellect.

Why is it that only human beings have the potential of consciousness and no other observable specie has no trace of it? Again, none of this can be reasonable without God as a factor. I urge my opponent to argue mere evolutionary chance favors consciousness.


III. Case for Christianity

A. Defining Christianity

Though religious and traditional definitions of Christianity varies by denomination. The most reasonable and accurate definition is a belief in accordance to the words and teaching of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Professor E.P Sanders of Duke University collaborated the following as most plausible and historically sound explanations concerning the historical Jesus, or as he securely describes as ‘almost indisputable facts’:

1) Jesus was born c.4 BCE, near the time of the death of Herod the Great
2) He spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village
3) He was baptized by John the Baptist
4) He called disciples
5) He taught in the towns, villages, and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities)
6) He preached “the kingdom of God�
7) Around the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover
8) He created a disturbance in the temple area
9) He had a final meal with the disciples
10).He was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest
11) He was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate
His disciples at first fled
12) They saw him (in what sense is uncertain) after his death
As a consequence they believed he would return to found the kingdom
They formed a community to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God’s Messiah {6}

B. Argument for Christian Ethics

If there is one premise I know everyone here can agree on, it is that human beings indeed exists. But why? Popular atheistic (humanistic and metaphysical) philosophies which believes human purpose can be some sort of personal destiny that is formulated by that one individual perspective.
Well if this is true, what would stop someone who thoroughly enjoys inflicting fatal destruction upon other human beings from performing that individual's hobby? Anyone who would attempted to stop that person would be commiting an infringement of that individual's freedom. Would humanist not see this violation as "intolerable"?

As you can see, these philosophies can simply not be put into practical beliefs. According to atheism, right and wrong behaviors are simply inconsistent concepts that wouldn't even be practical enough for a definition unless there was a concept of moral code in which to establish exactly what is "right" and "wrong".

Christanity is the moral foundation of America culture which has been carried since our founding fathers. In modern perspective, most of the Christian ethics are simply self evident "wrong" behaviors (Killing, cheating, lying, stealing, ect.). However, it's rather humorous when I hear atheists call the Christian immoral, because the moral beliefs in which they put context, are all based on some principle of Christianity in one way or the other. It's simply hypocrisy!

Putting atheism aside, I will present two logical ethnic philosophies based on the teachings of Jesus:

1) Establishment of Righteous Ambition

A good tree doesn't produce bad fruit; on the other hand, a bad tree doesn't produce good fruit. For each tree is know by it's own fruit.
Luke 6: 30

Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so the outside of it may also become clean.
Matthew 23:17

If a child approaches another younger child, and pushes that child onto the ground for mere entertaining purposes; would that not be "wrong"? Whether there was a parent present to rebuke or admonish the child or not would it not still be "wrong" either way?
However, many don't take the effort to understand that "wrong" behavior does not necessarily require instantaneous negative consequences.

Now think about this one: Is it right if an unaware elderly women forfeits her retirement savings to a fraud investor? What if the investor is never "caught"? The investor has only to gain and has nothing to loose. Yet, isn't there something not quite right with this?

According to Jesus, his teachings infers that integrity or righteous ambition needs to be the fundamental motive of the human being.

2) Foundation for Consistent Happiness and Peace of Mind

Everyone who drinks from this water will get thirsty again. But whoever drinks from the water that I will give him will never get thirsty again..... ever.
John 4: 13

For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these.
Timothy 6:7

If it's one thing that provides both joy and peace, it is contentment. This is what is received to one who acknowledges the truths of Jesus. By doing this, you begin to accurately view everything as it really is. Everyday humans naively place value on such meaningless priorities. When you began to have a rational viewpoint on life through eyes of Jesus, you can observe how insignificant all finite existence is. there just seems to be no point in it outside of God. A car becomes a meshed metallic particals , money becomes a green printed slab of paper. You find that your finite ("fleshly" as the New Testament describes) life it truly insignificant and can only be given value by the opinions of others. Selfishness begins to become increasingly irrational. Undesirable attribute such as fear, worry, pain, and doubt finally drifts away as you truly acknowledging and adhering to self awareness.

Carrying the burden of selfishness leads to pointless and finite ambitions that only result in pain and disappointment because they have been created by the delusions of one's own instinctual perspective. Doing what is good and righteous (Doing what you are designed to do) becomes the only plausible option. As Paul continues in his letter to Timothy:

But those who want to be rich fall into temptations, a trap, and many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge man into ruin and destruction. For the love of money (or any assorted forms of matter) is the root of all kind of evil, and by craving it, some have wandered away from the faiths and pierced themselves with pain.
Timothy 6: 9-10

C. Evidence for the Resurrection

...as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.
- N. T. Wright {7}


Did the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth actually rise from the dead? I simply claim that it is (overwhelmingly) the most historically reasonable explanation that can link to astonishing movement which we interpret today as Christianity.

During the opening statements of Dr. Craig's debate with Professor Edwin Curley; Dr. Craig presented three historical accurate facts (with support) that proves the actual resurrection of Jesus is perfectly plausible:

Fact # 1: On the Sunday following his crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
By far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the Biblical statements about the empty tomb.
- Austrian scholar, Jacob Kremer { 8 }


Fact # 2: On separate occasions different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death.
It may be taken as historically certain that...the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.
- German New Testament critic Gerd Ludemann {9}


Fact # 3: The original disciples suddenly came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus despite having every predisposition to the contrary.
Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was...
- New Testament scholar Luke Johnson {10}
{11}


IV. Conclusion

I believe these cases to speak for themselves: after demonesterating a historically sound case concerning the worldview and ethics of Christinaity as well as explaining the myths of theism made by atheism, it can safely and reasonably be concluded that God is simply the only belief within reason. Not to mention presenting flaws and reasonable explanations which reveils the "logic" of atheism to be made up of nothing more than a misguided and self-contradicting concepts which contains no other objetive but to continually rationalizes against flat out truth, by any means necessiary.


V. Summerized Outline

I. Case against Atheism
A. Atheism has been poorly defined by atheists
(Two grammical contradiction)
B. Atheism is it's own belief
C. Atheism is a fallaous beliefs
(Three specific reasons)
II. Case for God
A. God makes sense
B. God explains science
C. Thermodynamics proves God
D. God explains Consciousness
III. Case for Christinaity
A. Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure
B. Jesus explains moral principle and human purpose
C. Evidence supports the resurrection of Jesus


_________________________________________________________

Endnotes
{1} [The American Heritage® Dictionary]

{2} [Thorndike E.L. (1911). "Animal intelligence". New York: Macmillan]

{3} [Craig v. Washington (1995)]

{4} [`Origin of the Universe', (Copyright 1988 Stephen W. Hawking. All rights reserved.)]

{5} [Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]

{6} [The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993)]

{7} [“The New Unimproved Jesus,� Christianity Today (September 13, 1993), p. 26]

{8} [Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien––Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuttgart:
[Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), pp. 49–50.]

{9} [Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville,
Kent.:Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 8.]

{10} [Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p.
136.]

{11} [Craig v. Curley (1998)]

[Silent Dave]

I would like to thank IIDB for providing this venue for formal debates, and Nightshade and StrictSeperationist for moderating this forum (speaking from experience, it's harder than it might appear). I acknowledge my opponent Chris for "proposing a challenge to the highest credited atheist IIDB.org can offer, a debate concerning the existence of God." Although I am far from the best IIDB can offer, and although the debate topic ended up being slightly different than that in the challenge I originally accepted, I hope that I can present a good accounting of myself as the debate progresses.

Merriam-Webster defines reasonable as "being in accordance with reason," which in turn is defined as "a sufficient ground of explanation or logical defense; especially something (...) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact." The definition of "disbelief" is more ambiguous -- in this context it can refer to either "lack of belief in God's existence," or "belief that God doesn't exist." I think the former definition is more accurate; but since Chris prefers the latter, and since we are, in other respects, "playing on his turf," I will use the latter definition as consistently as possible.

In this debate, I will argue that disbelief in the existence of the Christian God is more reasonable than belief in the existence of the Christian God. I will defend this viewpoint with seven factors: the presumption of disbelief, the incoherence of Christianity, the nature of artifacts, the existence of physical minds, the great amounts of both suffering and nonbelief in the world, and divine silence.


1. The Presumption of Disbelief

The claim that God exists is an extraordinary one. By "extraordinary," I do not mean that belief in such a claim is not a common phenomenon in the world -- certainly that is not the case. I mean, rather, that such a claim runs contrary to the way we explain the world in terms of coherent, understood and accepted phenomena. In Douglas E. Krueger's words, an extraordinary claim is "one requiring you to give up some of your present commonsense beliefs in order to believe the claim."[1]

It's important to note that ordinary/extraordinary is not a simple dichotomy; they seem to be opposite ends of a spectrum. It's also important to note how the rational mind handles claims at each end of the spectrum.

For example, suppose I claimed that there was an insect in my apartment. That's certainly an ordinary claim; insects are not only common, they are pervasive in the world, and one is not required to disregard any commonsense beliefs to accept my claim. One may accept it at face value.

Suppose I claimed that there was a large boa constructor in my apartment. You may think that a little strange, but not extraordinary. Snakes happen. In fact boas are actually pretty good at keeping down the rat population. You may not accept my claim at face value, but you may not reject it out of hand, either.

Suppose I claimed that there was a large elephant in my apartment. That claim would be considered very strange indeed -- especially to those who know just how small my apartment is -- and could be considered extraordinary. We take it as common sense that elephants are not found in North America, outside of zoos; have no business inside someone's small apartment; and could not fit there in any case. One would be justified in rejecting the claim at face value, absent some extremely good evidence for it.

Suppose I claimed that King Kong -- who is real, alive and well, has been living on Ganymede these last several decades, and has returned to Earth for a Vaudeville tour of Atlantis, where hundreds of millions of intelligent fish-people are happily living on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean -- was in my apartment.

We could pretty much stop right there. Such a claim is so extraordinary that not only would you reject it out of hand, but you would continue to reject it -- not just withhold acceptance, but positively reject it -- even if I argued it with all the rhetorical skills of Socrates, Demosthenes, Abraham Lincoln, Robert Ingersoll and Al Sharpton, rolled into one.

These are some examples of how a rational mind treats claims at different points on the ordinary-extraordinary scale.[2] The claim that there exists a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, transcendent, immutable, nonphysical, omnipresent, and absolutely perfect -- all attributes of the Christian God -- is likewise extraordinary, I would say to an extent that exceeds even the King Kong claim.

But even if such a claim were not so extraordinary, the presumption of disbelief still holds as a valid methodological principle. The Christian is making an existential claim: that God exists. The Christian is thus responsible for backing up that claim with evidence. Disbelief in God's existence is warranted in the absence of a compelling, or at least prima facie, case for God's existence.

Of course, at the same time that I am preparing this statement, Chris is attempting to construct just such a case. If that case proves invalid, however, or does not establish its intended conclusion with the evidential weight demanded by the extraordinariness of the original claim, then nonbelief in God is the most reasonable position by default.

The presumption of disbelief aside, there are excellent reasons for disbelief in the Christian God being more reasonable than belief. I will consider a few of these now.


2. The Incoherence of Christianity

I take it for granted that, in order to be reasonable, a belief must be coherent; that is, it must make sense when internally examined. However, when examining Christianity, one finds that it is not coherent. It is nonsensical in some places, and self-contradictory in others.

There is, naturally, a difference between "Christianity" and "the belief that the Christian God exists;" the latter is simply an existence-belief, while the former is an entire worldview. Nonetheless, because Christian theism is central to the Christian worldview -- and more than one Christian has told me that the reverse is true as well -- I hold that the incoherence of the Christian worldview renders belief less reasonable, and disbelief more reasonable.

Of course, it is dangerous to speak of "the Christian worldview" as if there were only one such thing; there are, at minimum, thousands of individual varieties of Christianity. Nonetheless, all or almost all Christian worldviews hold in common the following four core concepts: the concept of God, the concept of Christian ethics as set forth in the Bible, the concept of Jesus's atonement through his death on the cross, and the concept of salvation through Jesus. All four of these aspects are incoherent; thus, so is Christianity as a whole.

First, the concept of God is incoherent. God is supposed to be all-knowing -- that is, to have all knowledge that there is. As Michael Martin pointed out, there are three kinds of knowledge: propositional, or factual, knowledge (I know that Canberra is the capital of Australia), procedural knowledge (I know how to play tennis well), and knowledge by acquaintance (I know Cassie). God cannot know how to play tennis well, for that implies being in an embodied state, which God is not. There is also reason to think that all-knowingness is impossible, as there is no such thing as the set of all knowledge when one considers all possible sets and subsets. The all-knowing nature of God, in addition, conflicts with the moral perfection of God -- how can a morally perfect being have knowledge by acquaintance of lust and envy? -- and with the omnipotence of God -- an omnipotent being cannot have knowledge of despair, frustration, or fear.[3]

Second, the concept of Christian ethics is incoherent. Not only does Jesus recommend some actions which are clearly unethical -- for example, allowing evil to exist without trying to fight it (Matthew 5:39), racism (Matthew 10:5, 15:21-28, Mark 7:25-30) -- and fail to condemn other actions which are unethical, such as slavery, but the Christian Bible contains contradictory ethical views. For example, we should both love our enemies (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27,35) and hate them (Matthew 12:30, 13:41-42,49-50); it is both immoral to call someone an insulting name (Matthew 5:22, Colossians 3:8) and isn't (Matthew 15:7, 22:18, 23:15,17, etc.); it is both immoral to lie (Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:22, Proverbs 6:17-19) and isn't (John 7:8, 18:20, Luke 23:39-43, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, 1 Kings 22:20-23); we both should honor our parents (Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16, Matthew 15:4, 19:19, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20) and shouldn't (Luke 14:26, 1 John 3:5, 4:20); to name just a few.[4]

Third, the concept of the atonement is incoherent. All major theories of the atonement either fail to explain why God had to sacrifice his son for the salvation of sinners, or they make the sacrifice seem pointless. For example, the Satisfaction Theory put forth by St. Anselm states that, by sinning, humans insult God and fail to give him his due, and an obligation exists to undo the insult and satisfy honor; only the death of God's son can give proper satisfaction, and this death is just since it was voluntary. However, even the voluntary death seems unjust, since a good person would not permit an innocent person to provide satisfaction even if the guilty party could not pay anything, and it is not clear that an actual death would be necessary for satisfaction, as opposed to some other punishment (and even assuming that a death was necessary, surely there can be little satisfaction in this case, since Jesus was supposedly dead for only a short time). Also, why are only those who accept the sacrifice of Jesus saved? There are no satisfactory answers to these questions. There are several other theories of the atonement, of course, but they are equally unsatisfactory.[5]

Finally, the concept of salvation is incoherent. Even the Bible presents conflicting views of this: some verses argue that salvation is attained through works, others through faith alone. Even if the latter were true, it is unclear what, exactly, one is supposed to have faith in. Is it simply the gospel message, as outlined in the problem of nonbelief above, or is there more? Is it simply the resurrection, as Paul maintains, or is it the everything from the Virgin Birth to the Trinity to the Second Coming, as the Creeds maintain? Christians who read the Bible and the Creeds would be hopelessly confused. I'm sure that Chris has his own opinion on these issues, but the dispute remains, and there seems to be no non-arbitrary way to resolve it. Hence the incoherency.[6]

As we see, these four core concepts of the Christian worldview are incoherent; thus Christianity is incoherent. I hold that this makes belief in the existence of God much less reasonable than disbelief.


3. Artifacts

If God existed, the universe would be an artifact -- that is, a deliberately created object. However, the universe does not show certain signs of artifacting, which it probably would if it were created. [7]

How do humans determine whether a given object in the world is an artifact? We look for tell-tale signs of having been created. For instance, in Michael Martin's words, "we know almost always that when an object has certain peculiar marks on it, these have been left by a flaking tool and, consequently, that the object was created." [8] Other signs to look for are "evidence of machining, materials that do not exist in nature, regular markings, and the like." [9] Different artifacts have different signs of their making, of course, but these signs are almost invariably present in artifacts.

Scientists, and others, use these signs as a test to determine whether a given object is an artifact. If an object does not meet this test, it is most probably not created. The universe as a whole does not meet the test; it exhibits no signs of being an artifact. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the universe is not an artifact, and hence reasonable to disbelieve in God.

There are two obvious objections to this argument. One is that, contra my observation above, the universe does exhibit signs of being an artifact; at this point, the Christian invokes some variant of the argument to design. All versions of the argument to design that I have seen, however, are flawed. Should Chris invoke a particular argument, either in his opening statement or in response to this one, I will explain how this is the case.

The other obvious objection is that the universe is unique, and should not be judged in the same way we judge ordinary objects within it. The universe is indeed unique, but as Martin argues, "there is no reason to suppose, in the light of our present evidence, that this is relevant in judging whether it is created or not. We have no reason to suppose it cannot be judged by the same criteria we use to judge whether planets, rocks, and gismos are created." [10]

The nature of artifacts, then, makes it reasonable to disbelieve in the existence of God. It can be debated whether this argument, by itself, would make it more reasonable than not to disbelieve in God; but it appears here as part of a cumulative case for the reasonableness of disbelief.


4. Physical Minds

In recent decades, science has enjoyed enormous progress in our understanding of the human brain, and it now seems clear that the mind -- meaning a person's personality and consciousness -- is dependent upon the physical brain.

In a 1994 debate, Michael Tooley listed five evidences that the mind is either purely physical, or causally dependent on something physical. First, a person can be caused to have a certain mental experience, or to be in a certain mental state, when that person's brain is stimulated into a corresponding physical state. Second, it is possible for a person to be unable to have any mental states at all if the physical brain is damaged in a certain way. Third, certain mental capacities can be destroyed by damage to corresponding regions of the physical brain. Fourth, when we examine and compare the mental capacities of other species, we see that the complexity of those capacities are proportional to the complexity of the physical brain; as one increases, so does the other. Finally, in any given individual of any given species, mental capacities develop proportionally to the development of neuronal circuitry in the corresponding regions of the physical brain. [11] These factors, among others, strongly establish the conclusion that, in the words of Paul Draper, "Nothing mental happens without something physical happening." [12]

This makes belief in God's existence less reasonable than not in two ways. First, if God exists then some sort of afterlife exists where the mind exists without having, or being dependent on, any physical form (in other words, a "soul"). However, because the mind depends on the brain for its existence, such an afterlife, and therefore God, cannot exist. Second, if God exists, then he himself would be a disembodied mind. However, because ":nothing mental happens without something physical happening," a disembodied mind cannot exist. Therefore, God himself cannot exist. [13]


5. Suffering

It should go without saying that there exists a great deal of suffering and premature death in the world. Some suffering -- the great wars in history, the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the Holocausts, 9-11, etc. -- are the result of the actions of moral agents with free will. Others, however, are caused by natural forces. We may never know, for instance, the true extent of suffering and premature death caused by Hurricane Katrina. Countless other examples come from earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, landslides, storms, drought, famine, etc. The amount of suffering in the whole of human history to date is vast beyond belief.

Any decent human being would eliminate this suffering, or at least reduce it drastically. The Christian God, if he exists, is much more than that; he is maximally loving and caring, maximally merciful, maximally knowledgeable and maximally powerful. Yet why does he allow such a great amount of suffering and premature death to take place? The most reasonable explanation is that God does not exist.

It is important to distinguish between two different types of this argument: the logical and the evidential. The former argues that the nonexistence of God is necessarily true, while the latter argues that it is most probably true. The general consensus among scholars is that the former is all but indefensible; I am not certain that that is true, but it does not matter for purposes of this debate, as I am using the latter.

In recent decades, there have been two major schools of thought that have arisen in response to the problem of suffering. One is theodicy, which is a theory given for the purpose of reconciling the existence of God with the existence of the vast amount of suffering (or the existence of apparently pointless suffering) in the world. The most popular theodicy is the free will defense; other versions include the soul-making defense, the punishment defense, and the afterlife defense. All of these are problematic; space limitations preclude me from addressing all of them in depth at this point, but if it turns out that my opponent ascribes to one of these theodicies, I will be happy to evaluate his chosen theory at length.

The second school of thought is what I call skeptical theism -- it is the view that we don't know, or can't know, the reasons for God's permitting the existence of such a great quantity of suffering; nevertheless, since such reasons are beyond our ken, the problem of suffering does not render Christian theism any less reasonable. This is the very topic that my bachelor's thesis addressed, thus I am more than prepared to address it at length; again, however, I will wait for Chris to articulate a response, then consider that response.[14]

In either case, I contend that the problem of suffering is ultimately insurmountable for the Christian, and provides an excellent reason why disbelief in the Christian God is more reasonable than belief.


6. Nonbelief

The problem of nonbelief is a more recent entry in philosophy of religion; nonetheless, it is taken quite seriously by many scholars. One statement goes as follows: if the Christian God exists, why are most people in the world unaware of the fact? Presumably, God would be able to convince all of humanity that he exists and that he sent his son into the world so that humankind may be saved -- we can call this the "gospel message."[15] Presumably, God would desire for that to happen, particularly since humanity's salvation is contingent upon acknowledgement of those facts. Why, then, do all or almost all humans, not have (and believe) all the information necessary for salvation? Again, the most reasonable explanation is that God does not exist.[16]

There is a great amount for support for the argument that, if Christian theism were true, all or almost all humans would believe the gospel message. Much of this support comes from the Bible: God commanded people to "believe in the name of his son Jesus Christ" (1 John 3:23), to love him above all else (Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30), and to preach the gospel message to all nations (Matthew 28:19-20) and to all creation (Mark 16:15-16). 1 Timothy 2:4 states that God wants all humans to "come to a knowledge of the truth." And, as I have already stated, an all-loving and all-merciful God must want all humans to be saved, and according to most forms of Christian theism, belief in the gospel message is necessary for that. But completely aside from the Bible, most Christians hold God as one who loves humanity, and wants humans to love him back.[17] So if God existed, he would certainly want all or almost all humans to believe, and would have the power to make that happen.

At this point, the Christian might respond that, yes, God has the power to bring all or almost all people to a belief in the gospel message, and yes, he wants that to happen, but he has a reason for not doing so, a reason that outweighs his desire for everyone to believe and to be saved. As with the argument from suffering, responses can be divided into two schools: theodicy and skeptical theism. As before, I will not expend space attempting to anticipate my opponent's response; I will wait for him to articulate a response before addressing it.[18]

I do wish to say, however, that I can't imagine how any such outweighing desire would make sense in the context of Christian theism. What could possibly be more important to God than the eternal salvation or damnation of his creation? All the possible responses that I am aware of may make sense on an analytical level (although their analytical soundness is another matter entirely), but they fail on a human level. For example, if we suppose some version of the free will defense to be sound, imagine what God would have to say to a damned soul:

Sorry, but it wasn't part of My plan that your free will be interfered with, even by the brief amount that would have made the difference between your eternal salvation or eternal damnation. Besides, I'm sure you prefer it this way: eternity in hell as a free agent, rather than eternity in heaven as a robot."

I can't speak for Chris, but that's not the God that most of my Christian friends acknowledge. A similar point can be made with regard to the problem of suffering. Any response to these two arguments, then, must take into account not only the analytical properties of the arguments in question, but also the human factor, so to speak. A theodicy might do a brilliant job with the validity and/or soundness of a particular anti-Christian theism argument, but if the theodicy means changing God into something most Christians would find unacceptable, then one has thrown the baby out with the bath water.

That being the case, the nonexistence of the Christian God is the best explanation we have for the vast amount of nonbelief, and this makes disbelief in God more reasonable than belief.


7. Divine Silence

This factor is similar to the nonbelief argument, above, but ultimately a seperate factor in itself; they are different problems, and make disbelief more reasonable than not for different reasons. Even if one problem were resolved, the other would remain.

Whereas nonbelief refers to a lack of acceptance of certain "factual" propositions -- namely, the gospel message -- "divine silence" refers to a lack of a spiritual (or, if one prefers, intuitive) awareness of God's presence. Of course, a great many Christians would testify that they do experience God's presence, and that God has made an enormous impact on their lives. I do not dispute this. The present concern, however, is the great number of people -- including some Christians -- who have honestly desired, and in some cases desperately hoped for, the experience of God, and have failed to experience him. I stress the fact that this is true of both Christians and non-Christians.

This would not be expected if Christianity were true. If the Christian God exists, then we would expect that anyone who is honestly seeking God's presence would experience it. This expectation is derived from the overall conceptual framework of evangelical Christianity; if one were to ask a given Christian, "If a person is honestly seeking God, will God make his presence known to that person?", that Christian will almost certainly answer yes. However, that turns out not to be the case. So many people, particularly in the wake of tragedies, have sought God's comforting presence and have not found it. The best explanation for this is that God does not exist. Thus, disbelief is more reasonable than belief.


Conclusion and Summary

I have shown that there is a presumption of disbelief; that is, that disbelief in the existence of the Christian God is the default reasonable state in the absence of a compelling case for God's existence. I have, in addition, outlined six phenomena that make more sense given God's nonexistence than God's existence, and thus make disbelief more reasonable than belief.

Per the debate parameters agreed to by Chris and myself, I am compelled to include a bulleted summary of the major points made in this statement. Here it is:


The claim that God exists is an extraordinary one, and disbelief in God's existence is justified given the absence of extraordinary evidence for it. Even if that were not the case, the Christian, being the one making the existential claim, has the burden of demonstrating God's existence in order to counter reasonable disbelief.

The incoherence of the Christian worldview -- in particular, the incoherence of the concepts of God himself, Christian ethics, the atonement and the salvation of humanity -- makes belief in God's existence unreasonable, and disbelief reasonable.

The universe does not meet the test ordinarily conducted to determine if something is an artifact; therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that the universe is uncreated.

The physical nature of the mind makes Christian theism unreasonable in two ways: it renders the existence of an afterlife improbable, and the existence of God himself, being a disembodied mind, improbable.

The vast amount of suffering and premature death makes more sense given the nonexistence of God than the existence of God.

The great amount of nonbelief in the gospel message in the world makes the existence of the Christian God unlikely.

Divine silence makes more sense given disbelief than belief; therefore disbelief is more reasonable.[19]



Endnotes

[1] Krueger, What Is Atheism: A Short Introduction (Prometheus Books, 1998), pp. 159-160.

[2] Other examples of varying degrees of ordinary and extraordinary claims can be found in Krueger, p. 160, and in IIDB member Wiploc's post My fantasy debate with William Lane Craig (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=812487#post812487), dated January 30, 2003, spotted September 28, 2005.

[3] Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Temple University Press, 1990) pp. 287-317. See also Michael Martin, Is Christianity Absurd? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/xtianity_absurd.shtml), dated 2002, spotted September 29, 2005.

[4] Krueger, pp. 33-46.

[5] Martin (2002).

[6] Ibid.

[7] Martin (1990), pp. 330-333. See also Wallace I. Matson, The Existence of God (Cornell University Press, 1965), pp. 129-130. Martin bases his argument largely on Matson, but has developed it in a more systematic fashion.

[8] Martin (1990), p. 331.

[9] Matson, pp. 129-130, quoted in Martin, p. 331.

[10] Martin (1990), p. 332.

[11] Michael Tooley, Opening Statement (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-tooley2.html) in William Lane Craig and Michael Tooley, "A Classic Debate on the Existence of God," undated, updated July 13, 2002, spotted September 26, 2005.

[12] Paul Draper, "Opening Statement" in William Lane Craig and Paul Draper, "Does God Exist?" (videotape, West Point, NY, 1996), quoted in Jeffrey Jay Lowder, "The Empirical Case for Metaphysical Naturalism," (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1999/march.html#Naturalism) dated March 1999, spotted September 26, 2005.

[13] Steven J. Conifer, "Mind-Brain Dependence as Twofold Support for Atheism," (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_conifer/mbd.html) dated 2001, spotted September 28, 2005.

[14] An excellent overview of the various responses to the problem of suffering -- including a variant of skeptical theism, better known as the "unknown purpose defense" -- can be found at Mark I. Vuletic, The Tale of the Twelve Officers, (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html) dated 2002, spotted September 28, 2005. Vuletic does not provide a dry analytical overview; rather, he presents the various responses in a manner that demonstrates that the various responses are trite and unfulfilling on a human level, and should be used after careful consideration, if at all. As Vuletic himself states, "The temptation to offer to an entity a moral blank check simply because it sports a nametag with 'God' written on it, is overwhelming in our theistic culture."

[15] A Christian may protest that these two statements, by themselves, do not constitute the entire gospel message. If a Christian wishes to add to the gospel message, I have no objection; if anything, it makes the problem of nonbelief a more forceful argument against Christian theism.

[16] See Theodore M. Drange, Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God (Prometheus Books, 1998) for an extremely detailed defense of both this argument and a variation of the argument from suffering.

[17] Drange, pp. 64-67.

[18] It may be worthwhile, at this point, to say a few words about the concept of sin -- this is a topic that evangelical Christians expend a great deal of time and effort addressing (I've always thought it amusing that a supposedly ultimately positive worldview would be so fixated on its most basic negative; but that's neither here nor there). Sin is an inadequate response to the arguments from suffering and nonbelief. With regards to the former, as I have indicated, a large portion of the suffering in the world -- if not the vast majority of it -- is a result of natural forces that have nothing to do with the actions (or inactions) of a moral agent. As for the latter, sin would only apply in case of people who were aware of the existence of the gospel message, but chose to reject it. In the case of many if not most nonbelievers, this is not the case. Some are not, have never been and never will be, aware of the gospel message due to geographical and/or cultural isolation. Others are aware of the gospel message, but find it more reasonable to withhold belief, for reasons that have nothing to do with their own moral choices. Sin might explain some instances of suffering and nonbelief, but certainly not all, and not enough to mitigate the reasonableness of disbelieving in God's existence.

[19] I am indebted to James Lazarus for his insightful comments on an earlier draft of this statement.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The next set of concurrent statements will make up Round 2.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Smith_87 has requested an extension for a week to submit his next statement and we have granted his request. Henceforth, concurrent statements for Round 2 are due by Nov. 17.

- NS, FD Moderator

[Smith_87]

Dave's Summarized Arguments :

1. The Presumption of Disbelief

A. God lacks extraordinary evidence

What would one consider to be "extraordinary" evidence? I assume Dave, like many other infidels, would deem some miraculous sign as clear evidence. However, according to the gospel, Jesus states that no sign will be given to them [Matthew 12:39] . So many atheist expect some sort of Hollywood special effect demonstrated right before their eyes, but it simply won't happened.

Dave has revealed one fallacious appeal after another. The concept of "a large elephant" or "King Kong" has no relevance whatsoever with the Christian God. Unless of course, my opponent somehow constructs a sound argument that an oversized ape caused the universe as well as developed all known phenomena.

How about the universe; does that somehow not qualify as "extraordinary" evidence? The philosophical question atheists always seem to dodge is, "Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?". The Christian God makes sense of teleology, while on the other hand, atheism sputters the study into nonsense.

B. Burden of Proof rests on the Christian

Dave appeals that atheism is logically reasonable by, "default". However, this is not the case. Can Dave convince me of a few of the many objections towards atheism? Does the universe generates itself for absolutely no reason? how does gravity and other physical phenomenon capable of mindlessly fabricating protogalaxies? And is the destiny and purpose of human life death? Unless Dave can fully satisfy these questions, atheism makes absolutely no stance as “default�.


2. Incoherence of the Christian Worldview

A. Incoherence of the concepts of God himself

When the Wright brothers discovered and planned how create the first airplane, wouldn’t you think they knew a thing or two about the first airplane? Now if an entity was able to create time, space, and matter (the universe) ; couldn’t one logically acknowledge that the entity would know a little bit about the universe? Dave seems to be distorting the distinction between human knowledge (or overall memorization and comprehension of conceptual understandings), and the superiority of God’s divine knowledge. The “all-knowing� (infinite memories of experience) notion doesn’t accurately depict God’s knowledge. God simply “made� the physical realm which humans are able to observe, and therefore, “knows� (familiar or aware of) “everything� (his own creation which humans are/aren’t able to observe).�

This confusion does not end there; Dave claims that God is immoral (as if that could be logical) due to his knowledge of sin, such as envy and lust. Well, I know about envy and lust, am I now lusting or envying?

An “omnipotent being cannot have knowledge of despair, frustration, or fear�? How does knowing about despair, frustration, or fear rationally decrease power? Dave’s claims clearly do not produce any logical conclusions.

B. Incoherence of Christian Ethics

It’s one thing to reject that Jesus of Nazareth was not the messiah, but it’s completely another to claim that he made unethical “recommendations�. Jesus teaches to love, even your enemy (Matthew 5:39), discrimination against a race is never mentioned (Matthew 10:5, 15:21-28, Mark 7:25-30). I have not told Dave not to lie; did I clearly recommended an unethical action?
Putting these misguided and utterly bias interpretations aside, none of my opponent’s presumed claims would gain support of even the most critical of biblical historians.

C. Incoherence of the atonement and the salvation of humanity

The reason for Jesus’s sacrifice was to fulfill the final, eternal, and actual sacrifice required to satisfy sin. In the book of Hebrews, the author explains how animal sacrifices had nothing to do with atoning for sins at all (Hebrews 10:4). Jesus was the only perfect and worthy sacrifice in order to truly extinguish the potent potential of sin. Not only did he volunteer his life, but conquered death through the resurrection as well.

Dave states that “...even the voluntary death seems unjust...�. Yet, what about our lost troopers who have fought in Iraq, or the brave soldiers who did not survive D-day at Normandy? Was there sacrifice without cause? If someone drowned at the expense of saving another’s life, would you call that person’s actions “unjust�, “unethical�, or “unnecessary�?

D.Incoherence of Salvation

When combining observations from the New Testament with logical comprehension, the concept of salvation becomes very clear. However, Dave attempts to display the concept of “faith� and “good deeds� into a blurry and vague understanding.

Usually as you meet a new acquaintance, you might begin to gesture a greeting by means of a hand shake, rather than slap in the face. Why a hand shake rather than a slap? You would probably "believe" the hand shake was the more appropriate gesture than the slap in the face for that particular circumstance.

Action stems from belief; basically, if you've drawn certain beliefs from previous experiences, your behavior will usually react according to those beliefs. Jesus states that “a tree is known by it’s fruits� (Matthew 12:33), or to simply put, an individual who has found faith in his message shall react accordingly. Is it common for a passionate environmentalist to be caught carelessly littering? Of course not. What we refer to as "good deeds" are nothing more than the proper reaction of the faith found in the Jesus Christ.


3. "Artifacts" Argument

Obviously the universe is not an humanly crafted structure, but "must" be some sort of "deliberately created object". If the universe was a random, capricious, and senseless conception; such concepts as "frequency", "consistency", and "coherence" could not even exist! (think about it, if every component which formulates the "universe" was inconsistent; what else could possibly be consistent?) Therefore, Dave can not soundly claim that the universe is arbitral.


4."Physical Mind" Argument

A. Improbability of the after life

I would actually agree with Dave for the most part on subjects of the psyche or the soul directly relates to physical attributes of the brain, yet not completely dependant upon physical stature. Consciousness, thought, and emotions are still scientifically recognized as a phenomenon.{1} Unlike all other species to ever walk the face of the earth; homo sapiens are the only known specie that are capable of possessing self-controlled behaviors instead of having complete dependency upon environmental and instinctual factors. The human brain has no discovery of containing a localized center of conscious control. As neurologist Richard F. Thompson explains, "redundant and complementary processes within the brain result in a diffuse assignment of executive control that can be difficult to attribute to any single locale." {1} {2}

Basically, there is so much inconsistent neurological activities occurring within the brain, that it can not be scientifically interpreted into a sound pattern, and therefore, how the brain reacts is not dependant upon physical means. For example, if I lifted my left hand up right now for no apparent reason, this action stemmed from a neurotic reaction enabled by the psyche or "me". My brain itself didn't make my decision, but it simply carried out the proper reaction necessary to perform the desired action of my psyche.

In cases of mental impairment: you couldn't claim that the psyche was absent within the mentally disabled (young children and the mentally challenged are not soulless), but their psyche is more limited in options to what sort of impulses are able to be carried out, and therefore, limited to what behaviors and actions that can be performed.

So in conclusion, the psyche may configure what is physical, but not in itself a physical entity. Because it is abstract and not physical; it makes the afterlife (and thus God) perfectly reasonable.

B. God [disembodied mind] is improbable

God himself does not have a physical mind, nor contains cognitive mental processes, and therefore can not be interpreted into the form of a disembodied mind, but designed the physical concept we observe as the "mind". Thus, Dave's comparative argument is not valid.


5. "Suffering" Argument

Arguments of suffering are all to common among debating atheists, however, not one of them can ever disprove God, but instead notions towards justifying a rejection of God. The actual concept of suffering is usually misunderstood and/or taken for granted.

Suffering is simply the adverse concept of pleasure. "Suffering" is the unpleasant experience of human emotion and pleasure is a pleasing experience. A reality where there is "no pain" can not be practical within a physical nature or context. For example, what we know to be as "good" could not exist without an alternative (which is "bad"). This is the same sense as what makes hot "hot" and cold "cold". We can step outside on a freezing winter day and claim it as a "cold day" because we've experienced heat before in comparison. After observing these examples, it could be concluded that because pleasure exists, so does suffering and because suffering exists, so does pleasure. One would not exist without the other.

However, I'll also challenge Dave's arguments with the question of, "what difference does suffering make according to atheism?". If there is no God, then what significance is there between premature or late death? Why does life mean more than death? Atheism seems to always fail at presenting a sound moral argument; because if there is no God, there would be no use for morals!


6. "Nonbelief" Argument

God has indeed, made his witness known. First of all, Jesus mentions that most will choose not to follow him (Luke13:24). Secondly, according to the book of Romans, God's divine nature has been witnessed to all men. Therefore, God will judge justly according to the knowledge of that individual. It is not the rehearsal of the Christian doctrines themselves that paves the way for salvation, but the overall acknowledgement and acceptance of the divine meaning behind those words (Matthew 15:8-9). I believe this excerpt from Dr. Craig's question and answer portion of his debate can further
clarify {3}:

Question: ....you could have the most perfect, godly, wonderful man, who does wonderful things for society and saves millions of lives, but just because he's of a different religion, or he was never exposed to Christian doctrine, therefore he goes to Hell...

Dr. Craig: I don't think Christianity says that.

Questioner: It absolutely does! That's the whole basis of Christianity.

Dr. Craig: Well, I disagree. I think I know fairly well what it says, and [laughter, applause] in Romans chapters 1 and 2 in the New Testament Paul says that salvation is available to any person who responds to the light of nature and conscience, if he hasn't heard the Good News about Jesus Christ, say, a person living in North America during the Middle Ages, before missionaries came. If this person will respond to the witness of God in nature---he can see there's a Creator God, say---and he senses the moral law of God written on his heart, and he responds, Paul says in Romans chapter 2 in verse 7, God will give that person eternal life. Now that doesn't mean he's saved apart from Christ, but it would mean that he may not have a conscious knowledge of Christ, which is the basis of his salvation. He would be like a person in the Old Testament who was saved through Christ, even though he hadn't yet heard of Christ; he responded to the light that he had. So I think God gives sufficient grace or salvation to every person. God is fair and He's loving and He wants everyone to come to know Him and be saved.


7. "Divine Silence" Argument

I'll take this argument as an opportunity to share that God can be directly known and experienced to everyone who truly seeks him. Dave argues that non believers and even some Christians feel as if God has abandoned them, or is purposely given them misfortune. This feeling does not produce from those who honestly seek God's presence, but from those have addressed God in order to fulfill their own agenda.

When you seek God, you seek his will and not your own. Only then will filled with his peace and satisfaction. I can say that I have found this personal connection through Christ Jesus. Through living by the principles of Christ instead of by self-seeking desires; is truly how God can be "experienced� practically during everyday life.

An infidel going through a disaster or tragedy can rationalize against God by claiming "there is no reasonable explanation why this has happened", but it happened. Yet, they never consider "there is no reasonable explanation to why I exist", but you do exist. A thought any infidel should take into consideration.

Conclusion:

Dave's arguments appear to be objections toward God, rather than a strong case against God. I believe that is yet another factor which makes a belief in God more reasonable than claiming there is no God. I await too see how Dave will respond to these arguments. However, as it stands now, a belief in God remains overwhelmingly more plausible, and thus reasonable to believe.

Summerized Outline

1. Reasons for Beliefs
A. Existance of the universe proves God
B. Disbelief is not reasonable as "default"
2. Christianity is a coherent worldview
A.God is a coherent concept
B.Christian Ethics are sound
C.Christian Atonement is reasonable
D.Christian Salvation is reasonable
3.The universe is not an artifact
4. The Afterlife is reasonable
A. Consciousness itself is abstact and not physical
B. God is not a disembodied mind
5.Suffering does can not disprove God
A. Atheism lacks a sound case for ethics
6. Nonbelief of others does not disprove God
7. God can be experianced directly

References:

{1} {2} [Thompson, Richard F. (2000). The Brain : An Introduction to Neuroscience. Worth Publishers.]

{2} {1} [Simon, Seymour (1999). The Brain. Harper Trophy]

{3} [Washington V. Craig, February 1996]

[Silent Dave]

At the start of the second round, I once again thank the IIDB administrators, Nightshade and StrictSeperationist for making this debate possible.

The position that Chris agreed to take in this debate is that belief in the existence of the Christian God is more reasonable than disbelief. In this first rebuttal, I will show that Chris, in his opening statement, has failed to do that.

One disclaimer before I begin: The order in which I address Chris's arguments is not precisely the same order in which they appeared in his opening statement. I have grouped his arguments together according to conceptual similarity rather than chronology. I apologize in advance for any confusion this may cause.


1. The Case Against Atheism

In his opening statement, Chris advanced a number of arguments against atheism. However, I am not defending atheism in this debate. I am defending the position that it is more reasonable than not to disbelieve in the existence of the Christian God -- a position that is compatible with agnosticism, deism, pantheism, panentheism, panpsychism, polytheism, henotheism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, animism, and even Christianity. Therefore, I see no need to respond to those arguments.[1]


2. Science, Consciousness and Morality

Chris has made three arguments that deal with certain aspects of human awareness. In the second part of his statement, Chris argued that the existence of God can account for both science and consciousness. In the third part of his argument, he made an argument with respect to ethics; it is less clear what this argument was supposed to be, but it may be that Chris was arguing that belief in God's existence is more reasonable beacuse it better explains ethics. This would coincide with his statement in the summary that "Jesus explains moral principle and human purpose."

Chris, then, has made abductive arguments for the reasonableness of belief in God, based on the premise that God's existence can better account for science, consciousness and morality. I will deal with these arguments at once, because the problems with them are, more or less, the same:


a. Chris has not shown that science, consciousness and morality are inexplicable absent Christian theism.

Chris's arguments from science and consciousness assume that all non-Christian worldviews -- those that currently exist, have existed in the past, and will exist in the future -- not only have not explained science and consciousness, but are incapable of explaining this. Chris has not shown this. He did practically dare me to defend the position that "mere evolutionary chance favors consciousness;" but even if the position that disbelief is more reasonable entailed evolutionary chance (whatever Chris might suppose that to mean), it is not my responsibility to show that consciousness can occur under evolution -- it Chris's responsbility to show otherwise. This is his argument, not mine.

Chris also assumes that all non-Christian worldviews are incapable of explainaing morality, either at all or as well as the Christian worldview. That turns out not to be the case. Non-Christians can account for morality, for instance, by invoking Kant's ethical theory, Mill's utilitarian system, or a secular virtue-based system; none of these require the existence of the Christian God to function. I won't bother defending one of them, as there isn't a single theory that one can point to and say, "this represents the non-Christians' view of morality."[2] Suffice it to say that Chris has not demonstrated why they all must fail. Indeed, he has not even shown awareness that they exist; he only refers to a vague caraciture of atheistic morality, which he describes as "some sort of personal destiny that is formulated by that one individual perspective." More on that below.

In short, by failing to show that science, consciousness and morality are inexplicable, or less well explained, without Christian theism, Chris's abductive arguments have failed to show that belief is more reasonable than disbelief.


b. Chris's arguments are invalid and fallacious.

An abductive argument -- that is, an inference to the best explanation -- is a valid argument type for a philosophical debate; indeed, my own opening statement consisted largely of abductive arguments. In order to be an argument, however, it must derive a conclusion from a set of premises. For example, from the premises that God's existence would seem to preclude a great amount of suffering on the one hand, and the existence of a great amount of suffering on the other, I derive the conclusion that God probably does not exist.

Chris does not do this. Rather, in the cases of science and consciousness, he simply describes the respective phenomenon in detail, then goes on to say something like, "How could this happen without God? God must exist." In other words, Chris bases his conclusion -- the existence of God -- on nothing other than his own personal incredulity; if there is anything beyond that to support the conclusion, Chris has left us in the dark as to what it is. This is a logical fallacy known as appeal to ignorance, or argument from incredulity, and as Richard Dawkins said, "Time and again, it has proven the prelude to an intellectual banana-skin experience."[3]

With regard to the ethical argument, Chris at least makes more of an effort, laying out and describing two Christian theories of ethics; however, he does nothing to show how they are superior to non-Christian ethics. As I said, he simply referes to a caraciture of atheist ethics, describing it as "some sort of personal destiny that is formulated by that one individual perspective," and easily dismisses it. This does not, however, describe any ethical stance uniformly held by non-Christian theists. It does not even describe any ethical stance uniformly held by atheists -- or, for that matter, held by any atheists at all.

Chris has simply invented something out of thin air, labelled it "the opposing view," and torn it down as easily as a strawman. Hence the term, "strawman fallacy." Chris is not arguing against the non-Christian position, but a position of his own devising.

So, technically, this entire debate so far has not been Chris vs. Dave, but Chris vs. Chris. Anyone care to lay odds?


c. Chris has not shown that God's existence can account for science, consciousness or morality.

Chris explains the existence of science, consciousness and morality by pointing to God, which he defines as "an extraordinary phenomenon of infinite proportions" and "the variable necessary to conclude the origin and operations of all energy and existence." Chris apparently views this explanation as an adequate one. That turns out not to be the case.

If a block of solid titanium suddenly appeared in the middle of Times Square, for instance, and an onlooker remakred, "Gurgleschnortz caused the titanium to appear," this would not be accepted as an adequate explanation for the phenomenon unless the onlooker told us who or what a Gurgleschnortz is, and how he/she/it caused the titanium to appar.

Similarly, in order for God's existence to adequately account for science, consciousness and morality, we would need to understand the nature and methods of God. Calling God an "extraordinary phenomenon" and a "variable" is, to say the least, insufficient. In order to invoke God as an adequate explanation for the given phenomena, Chris would have to, at the very least, answer the following questions:


How can a being who exists neither entirely in space nor entirely in time sustain its own existence?
Since the acts of creating and sustaining require the passage of time, how can God do either when he is outside of time?
What are God's methods for creating science, consciousness and morality?
What are God's methods for sustaining science, consciousness and morality?
If God created morality, then how is morality anything different than divine fiat?


In order for the existence of God to be an adequate account of science, consciousness and morality, we would need, at the very least, satisfactory answers to these questions. Beyond that, however, we would need a coherent contextual framework in which to consider God; and, as I have shown in my opening statement, the Christian worldview is incoherent. Thus, God's existence cannot account for science, consciousness and morality, and these arguments fail.


d. The logic of Chris's arguments can be turned against him.

In other words, I can demonstrate that the exact opposite of Chris's intended conclusion is true; that disbelief in the existence of God is more reasonable because only the nonexistence of God can account for these things.

Logic, for example -- which Chris invokes in his argument from science -- presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, if God exists, then this is not the case; logic is dependent upon God, and is therefore not necessary, but contingent. Therefore, insofar as the Christian worldview concludes that logic is somehow dependent upon God, logic can only be explained given the nonexistence of God. Similar arguments can be made for science itself, and morality. Science presupposes the uniformity of nature, but if God exists, this is not the case; miracles have happened. Therefore, only the nonexistence of God explains science. As for morality, both Christians and many non-Christians assume that some sort of objective morality exists. However, in order for objective morality to exist, God cannot exist; if he did, morality would not be objective, but a function of God's will. Hence, if God decided that genocide is a good thing, then it would be so. Hence, the existence of an objective morality is only explicable given the nonexistence of God.[4]


e. Chris's conclusions are compatible with non-Christian theistic worldviews.

Chris himself seemed to recognize this problem, for he placed two of the three arguments in a section that dealt with God in general rather than the Christian God in particular. Even if the above objections did not apply, the God of Judaism or Islam, for example, could serve as the foundation of science, consciousness and morality as easily as the Christian God. Yes, this is even true of Christian ethics -- most or all of Jesus's moral teachings have non-Christian precursors, which Chris seems to be unaware of. The Buddhist version of the "Golden Rule," for instance, predates the Christian version by about five centuries.


f. Even if sound, Chris's arguments would not necessarily make disbelief in the Christian God less reasonable.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from these arguments is that a Christian worldview can account for some things that a non-Christian worldview cannot; this shows that Christianity has some kind of epistemic superiority, but not that God exists, or even probably exists. One can concede the soundness of Chris's arguments and still reasonably disbelieve in the existence of God; such a person might view Christianity as an interpretive matrix that helps us to make sense of reality (due to perceptual and/or linguistic constraints), and that functions independently of whether or not its theistic claims are true.


These reasons are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg; I could go on about how, for instance, Chris's statement that "Christianity is the moral foundation of America (sic) culture" shows ignorance of the fact that our Founding Fathers were largely deists and agnostics. This, however, is enough to show that Chris's abductive arguments regarding science and consciousness in the second part of his statement, and the argument regarding ethics in the third part, are without merit and utterly fail to establish that belief is more reasonable than disbelief.[5]


3. The Thermodynamics Arguments

a. The Second Law of Thermodynamics

In the second part of his argument, Chris stated, "Keeping this (the second law of thermodynamics) in mind, how is energy able to concentrate into a complicated forms (sic) of matter such as planets, stars, and biological life (...) if all energy wants to do is distort and disperse? How do such phenomenal events such as the existence of life become reality?" He goes on to say, "(T)he second law clearly states that energy tends to break down instead of start up. Energy does not naturally build, but instead breaks down."

It is ironic that Chris cited Isaac Asimov in support of this argument, for here is what Asimov had to say about Chris's thermodynamic argument for God:

"Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is somehow invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying in the face of the second law through sheer perversity. Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are not blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms is suitable only for kindergarteners.

"To lift the argument a notch above the kindergarten level, the second law of thermodynamics applies to a 'closed system' -- that is, to a system that does not gain energy from without, or lose energy to the outside. The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole. Within a closed system, there are subsystems that can gain complexity spontaneously, provided there is a greater loss of complexity in another interlocking subsystem. The overall change then is a complexity loss in a line with the dictates of the second law."[6]

Chris's argument, then, is clearly not applicable to biological life; for the Earth, upon which biological life formed, receives more than 50,000,000,000 kilowatts of solar energy every second! The same can be said, to varying degrees, of planets and stars. In fact, all of the objects within the universe, from quarks to quasars, are open thermal systems. Thus, the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to them.


b. The Law of Conservation

But what of the Universe itself? As Asimov pointed out, the Universe as a whole is a closed thermal system -- the only one we know of. Here Chris cites the first law of thermodynamics, calling it the "law of conservation," in an effort to show that "(n)othing is now coming into existence or going out of existence; matter and energy may be converted into one another, but there is no net increase in the combined total of what exists."

However, according to the best scientific data we have, the total sum of energy in the universe is zero. The kinetic energy of motion is balanced by the potential energy of gravity; positive and negative cancel each other out, and the result is effectively zero. As for matter, it was generated during the very first instants of the Universe's expansion, during which the vacuum had negative pressure, per the cosmological constant term in general relativity, and the Universe simply worked on itself. This is allowed by conservation.[7]

Thus, no violation of the first or second laws of thermodynamics is required for the universe to exist; quite the contrary, the universe is exactly what we would expect given the nonexistence of God. Hence, disbelief in the existence of the Christian God remains more reasonable than belief.


4. The Historicity of Jesus

At the beginning of the third section of his opening statement, Chris lists twelve "almost indisputable facts" concerning the historical Jesus, purportedly taken from E.P. Sanders' The Historical Figure of Jesus.

In that same book, Sanders stated (emphasis mine):

"Roman sources that mention (Jesus) are all dependent on Christian reports. Jesus' trial did not make headlines in Rome, and the archives there had no record of it. If archives were kept in Jerusalem, they were destroyed when revolt broke out in 66 CE or during the subsequent war. That war also devastated Galilee. Whatever records there may have been did not survive. When he was executed, Jesus was no more important to the outside world than the two brigands or insurgents executed with him -- whose name we do not know."[8]

Thus, by Sanders' own admission, the evidence for the historicity of Jesus is not quite that overwhelming. However, matters are worse for Chris: contra Sanders, there is a strong body of evidence that suggests that there was no historical Jesus.

For one thing, as Sanders suggested, there is not a single contemporary mention of Jesus in the history books, by Christians or non-Christians. One can't help but ask: if this person had such a great impact on the world, why didn't anyone of the time notice? In fact, why do the greatest and most comprehensive historians of the time, including Philo-Judaeus and Justus of Tiberius, who wrote very detailed histories of the time and place where Jesus supposedly lived, make no mention of him? There are writers who did mention Jesus from the second century onward, but the earliest of these are vague and/or unreliable; there is no independent, contemporary source to confirm Jesus's existence.[9]

There are great bodies of evidence both for and against the historicity of Jesus, and I cannot really do justice to either within the context of this debate. Suffice it to say that the issue is not as clear-cut as Chris may have believed. That there existed a historical Jesus may be conceded for purposes of this debate, as it does not significantly aid Chris's case for the reasonableness of belief in the existence of God (although the reverse would not be true). The ambiguity of the body of evidence on the matter, however, should be borne in mind over the next section.


5. The Resurrection of Jesus

This is, in my opinion, the most critical section of Chris's case for reasonableness in the existence of God, for it is the "keystone event" in Christian mythology. Paul himself states, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised of Christ; whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (1 Corinthians 15:14-15). Thus, we can safely say that if Chris's support of the Resurrection fails, so does his entire position that belief is more reasonable than disbelief.

Chris's support of the Resurrection fails.


a. Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

When Jacob Kremer said "most scholars," what he meant was "most Christian fundamentalists." When one is talking about actual scholars, Kremer's statement is flat-out false.

The empty tomb story is based on the assumption that the New Testament accounts are accurate. There are no non-Biblical accounts that support the empty tomb, so Chris's argument pretty much has to rest on that. But how can they be accurate, when they aren't even consistent?

I don't know whether or not Chris is aware of Dan Barker's "Easter Challenge," but perhaps he would be interested in trying to meet it. The challenge, briefly, is this: take all the details from the New Testament accounts of the Resurrection (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, Acts 1:3-12, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8) and assemble them into a single narrative -- one that is coherent, plausible, and omits no Biblical detail.[10] Barker has been running this challenge for nearly two decades, and it has never been met. It is fairly well-known in apologetics' circles, and there are certainly some more-or-less coherent narratives floating around the Internet -- but none of them work without engaging in extra-biblical speculation and/or changing the meaning of some words without justification. (In addition, all the ones that I've read look like French farces set in Galilee. As historical documents, no one could be expected to take them seriously.)

In any case, secular history is silent about the events surrounding Easter, and about the people who played such prominent roles in the founding of Christianity. There is no good support for the empty tomb story. If Chris would like to bring in some actual support for the empty tomb story -- something stronger, hopefully, than a vague gesture in the direction of "most scholars" -- I'll be happy to address it in my closing statement.


b. Post-death appearances of Jesus

This time, instead of citing-by-proxy the nebulous entity that is "most scholars," he only cites one: Gerd Lüdemann. What Chris didn't mention is that Lüdemann believes that these appearances were hallucinations -- he even said as much in a 1997 debate with Chris's primary source for this section, William Lane Craig![11]

In any case, this assertion again begs the question of whether the New Testament accounts are historically reliable. Chris has not shown that they are. In addition, there are no first-hand accounts of these appearances. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, the other women, Cephas, James, the "twelve," the "five hundred" -- none of them spoke up for themselves, and we have only second- and third-hand reports. Paul himself admitted that his experience consisted solely of a bright light and hearing a voice. Hardly compelling.[12]


c. The original disciples came to believe in the Resurrection

And according to Chris, they did so "despite having every predisposition to the contrary." Why would they be predisposed against the very person that all their hopes and dreams had been pinned to coming back to life? Is it because their lives would be in danger? We have no accounts whatsoever of a witness to the resurrected Jesus dying for his or her belief, save a brief mention of the execution of James the brother of John, and we don't know why he died. There is also the martyrdom account of Peter, which first appeared in the Gnostic Acts of Peter -- but that document also includes such things as a flying wizard, a talking dog, and the resurrection of a tuna. Again, hardly compelling.[13]

In any case, if the fact that the earliest adherents of a religion created a strong and growing movement can count as evidence for that religion's truth, then most major religions in the world can claim that there is such evidence for its truth. Religious and fanatical devotion, as well as martyrdom, are as old as religion itself. It proves nothing about Christianity, or the Resurrection.[14]


Conclusion and Summary

Chris's opening statement has failed to show that belief in the existence of the Christian God is more reasonable than disbelief; indeed, he has failed to show that it is reasonable at all. Nearly half of his statement did not even address the topic at hand; the parts that did address it were wholly inadequate to establish Chris's conclusion.

Per the debate parameters, here is the summary of this statement:


The "case against atheism" is not germane to the topic of this debate, and therefore was not addressed.
The arguments regarding science, consciousness and morality suffered from some common problems -- a few of them being, that they did not show that these things are inexplicable absent Christian theism, that they did not show how Chrisitian theism can account for them, and that the same phenomena can be used against the Christian theist -- and thus all fail.
The thermodynamics arguments are based on misunderstandings of thermodynamics, and thus fail.
The evidence regarding the historicity of Jesus is not clear-cut, and this section does not help Chris in any case.
Chris completely (and, given the significance of this particular topic, spectacularly) failed to defend the historicity of the Resurrection, having made only assertions which are easily rebutted.



Endnotes


[1] Readers of this debate who are interested in an atheistic response to Chris's part one arguments may wish to consult Chris's debate with James Lazarus (http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopict-13378-Debate_Which_is_more_reasonable_Atheism_or_Theism.html). Chris submitted the same arguments in that debate. In fact, he submitted the same opening statement, word for word in this debate as he submitted in this one, a week later -- and as an incidental, I'd like to say that I'm disappointed. The question of the reasonableness of belief in the Christian God deserves serious and thoughtful consideration, not a "mass production" approach where entire statements, right down to the spelling errors, are duplicated for seperate debates, even where the debate topics are different. In any case, Mr. Lazarus will be responding to Chris's part one arguments; as for me, I prefer to retain the focus on this debate on the agreed-upon topic.

[2] All three of the systems I named, however, are discussed and defended in Douglas E. Krueger, "What Is Atheism: A Short Introduction" (Prometheus Books, 1998), pp. 51-61.

[3] Richard Dawkins, "River out of Eden," quoted in John Catalano, Behe's Empty Box, (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml) undated, updated November 28, 2001, spotted October 21, 2005.

[4] Michael Martin, The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html); dated 1996, spotted October 13, 2005.

[5] In addition to the above, of course, there is the following issue with regards to Christian morality: that they must be coherent in order to be superior to non-Christian morality, or to be a contributing factor to a successful transcendental argument. In my opening statement, however, I showed that Bible-based morality are not coherent.

[6] Isaac Asimov, "The 'Threat' of Creationism," New York Times Magazine, June 14, 1981; from Science and Creationism, Ashley Montagu, ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1984, p. 186.

[7]Victor Stenger, Intelligent Design: The New Stealth Creationism, (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/stealth.pdf) pp. 7-8; dated May 5, 2001, spotted October 22, 2005.

[8] E.P. Sanders, "The Historical Figure of Jesus" (Penguin, 1993), p. 49.

[9] Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith" (Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 1992), pp. 360-366.

[10] Barker, pp. 78-79.

[11] Michael Martin and Tyler Wunder, "The Craig-Lüdemann Debate," (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/september.html#ludemann) dated September 1997, spotted October 21, 2005.

[12] Farrell Till, Put Me Down For Myth, (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/4/4myth96.html) dated July/August 1996, spotted October 21, 2005.

[13] Richard Carrier, Probability of Survival vs. Miracle: Assessing the Odds, (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/2.html) from Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story, (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/) 5th edition, dated 2004, spotted October 21, 2005.

[14] Till (1996).

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Smith_87,

Please note you're missing a bulleted or enumerated summary in the conclusion of your recent statement, as you've agreed to input per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2759872&postcount=96) of the formal debate. Please remember to perform this task for your future statements. Also, I'm not clear on what you're referring to in your footnote {2}. Please contact me via private message so we can go about fixing the above problems via some minor editing.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The next set of concurrent statements will make up Round 3.

[Silent Dave]

As we enter the third and penultimate phase of this debate, I continue to be grateful to Nightshade, StrictSeperationist, and the IIDB Admins for making this debate venue possible.

In a conversation I had with Chris Smith near the start of this debate, the topic was raised as to whether the debate would change anyone's mind, particularly the minds of the debaters. I confessed that, while I acknowledged the possibility of my views on Christian theism changing as a result of this debate, I expected that that would not happen. That expectation has since been proven correct.

In my opening statement I set forth a case against the reasonableness of disbelief in the existence of the Christian God. In my previous statement, the first rebuttal, I showed that Chris failed to make a compelling, or even prima facie, case for the reasonableness of belief. Now, in this second rebuttal, I will show that Chris's attempts at criticizing my initial case fail.


1. The Presumption of Disbelief

In my opening statement, I argued that the claim that God exists is an extraordinary one, that disbelief in God's existence is justified given the absence of extraordinary evidence for it, and that the Christian, in any case, has the burden of demonstrating God's existence in order to counter reasonable disbelief.

Chris starts by asking, rhetorically, what would be considered "extraordinary" evidence. The answer to that is, evidence that is commensurate with the extraordinary degree of the claim. A miraculous sign may indeed suffice; however, I can imagine extraordinary evidence of other types. Chris claims that Jesus won't give a sign to infidels, but the Bible has Jesus doing precisely that (see John 2:11, 4:54, 6:2 and others). The point is irrelevant in any case; extraordinary evidence can come from humans as easily as from Jesus.

Chris attempted to rebuke my analogy of claims of increasing extraordinariness by saying it was irrelevant unless the things in my analogy (such as a large elephant and King Kong) created the universe. The quality of having created the universe, however, does not bear on the point I was making with respect to the way the rational mind treats claims of varying extraordinariness. That point stands. Existence-claims need not include the characteristic "created the universe" in order to qualify as extraordinary. But if that were the case, then so be it -- God is supposed to have created universe, therefore the claim that God exists can be extraordinary.

Chris states that the universe itself qualifies as extraordinary evidence, but doesn't say how this is so, other than to state the oft-repeated apologetic canard, "why is there something rather than nothing?" This rhetorical question is invalid because it assumes that nothing, rather than something, is the "default" state of existence, a departure from which requires some sort of explanation. Quantum physics, which has shown us that even a "perfect vacuum" is in fact filled with indescribable amounts of energy and virtual particles, denies that assumption.

Chris went on to state that I have made atheism to be logically reasonable by default. However, I said no such thing. In fact, outside of the endnotes where it appears as part of book and article titles, the word "atheism" does not appear once in my opening statement! Chris is the one who is hung up about atheism, not me.

I argued that disbelief in the existence of the Christian God is the default view, and I stand by that argument, particularly since Chris has done nothing whatsoever to actually address it. Moreover, disbelief, by itself, takes no stance on issues such as the origin of the universe and the purpose of life. Individual disbelievers answer those questions for themselves.

The presumption of disbelief stands as a sound principle.


2. The Incoherence of Christianity

In my opening statement, I demonstrated that four core aspects of the Christian worldview -- the concept of God, the concept of Biblical ethics, the concept of the atonement, and the concept of salvation -- are incoherent, and therefore that the Christian worldview as a whole is incoherent.

With respect to the concept of God himself: Chris attempted to rebut my argument by stating that God isn't all-knowing as I defined it, but rather that he "'knows' (familiar or aware of) 'everything' (his own creation which humans are/aren't able to observe)." How is that different from a repetition of what I just said? Perhaps Chris meant that God is only all-knowing in the sense that he has all factual knowledge, and not knowledge-by-acquiantance or knowledge-how. However, epistemologists recognize the latter two as types of knowledge. Therefore, in order for God to know everything, either by my definition or by Chris's, he must have knowledge-how and knowledge-by-acquaintance of everything. I have shown how this cannot be the case, and Chris did nothing to show otherwise. He simply made an irrelevant analogy to himself (irrelevant because Chris is neither all-knowing nor morally perfect, and can therefore have knowledge of envy and lust), and flat-out denied that an omnipotent being cannot have knowledge of despair, frustration or fear (these things only arise from an inability to do something, which never happens with an omnipotent being).

With respect to the concept of Biblical ethics: Chris didn't even respond to the inconsistencies that I pointed out. He only says two things: first, that Jesus can't be unethical, because he taught people to love and didn't teach them to discriminate against other races. This is irrelevant; even basically unethical people can have certain ethical qualities; Adolf Hitler, for instance, was a vegetarian, but did not thereby cease to be a mass murderer. Second, Chris says, "none of my opponent's presumed claims would gain support of even the most critical of biblical historians." He does not demonstrate that this is the case. He just asserts it. I therefore need only respond with an assertion of my own: That turns out not to be the case.

With respect to the concept of the atonement: Chris says that "Jesus was the only perfect and worthy sacrifice in order to truly extinguish the potent potential of sin," but does not explain how this makes any sense. Why was Jesus the only worthy sacrifice? Why was a sacrifice even necessary to atone? Chris makes no attempt to answer these questions. His analogies to soldiers in Iraq and Normandy are irrelevant to the point that a good person would not permit the innocent to provide satisfaction for sin, even if the guilty party could pay nothing.

With respect to the concept of salvation: Chris attempts to equate good works and faith by arguing that the former arises from the latter. However, does Chris believe that this is necessarily the case? If yes, this implies that no non-Christian ever does good deeds, which is obviously not the case. If no, then faith and good works remain seperate and distinct concepts, and the question remains: which is necessary for salvation? I have shown that the Bible is inconsistent about this.

The arguments to the incoherence of the Christian worldview stand as sound arguments for the reasonableness of disbelief.


3. Artifacts

In my opening statement, I argued that the universe does not meet the test ordinarily conducted to determine if something is an artifact, and therefore it is reasonable to suppose that the universe is uncreated.

Chris attempts to counter this argument by asserting, "If the universe was a random, capricious, and senseless conception; such concepts as "frequency", "consistency", and "coherence" could not even exist!" He does not demonstrate that this is the case. He just asserts it. I therefore need only respond with an assertion of my own: That turns out not to be the case. Nor has Chris shown that the universe not being an artifact entails randomness, capriciousness and senselesness.

Thus, the argument from the nature of artifacts stands, not only sound, but untouched.


4. Physical Minds

In my opening statement, I argued that the physical nature of the mind makes Christian theism unreasonable in two ways: it renders the existence of an afterlife improbable, and the existence of God himself, being a disembodied mind, improbable.

In response to the first, Chris stated that "The human brain has no discovery of containing a localized center of conscious control," and that neurological activity "can not be scientifically interpreted into a sound pattern, and therefore, how the brain" -- I assume he means the mind here -- "reacts is not dependant upon physical means." But this is a non sequitur. The facts that Chris mentioned do not show that the mind exists physically independent of the brain; at best, they show that our understanding of neurology is incomplete (and you don't need to be a brain surgeon to know that), but incomplete or not, everything we currently understand about neurology points to a mind-brain dependence.

Chris says, "For example, if I lifted my left hand up right now for no apparent reason, this action stemmed from a neurotic reaction enabled by the psyche or 'me.' My brain itself didn't make my decision, but it simply carried out the proper reaction necessary to perform the desired action of my psyche." And yet, by changing the physical state of Chris's brain, I can make Chris desire to raise his right hand instead of his left, or desire to raise both hands, or desire to scream instead of raising a hand, or even cease to have any desires whatsoever. This indicates that the brain and what Chris calls the "psyche" are the same thing, or at least that the latter is dependent upon the former.

In response to the second sub-argument, Chris called it invalid because God does not have a physical brain, and purportedly designed the mind. Again, a non sequitur. From everything we know about the mind, it is dependent upon the physical brain, and since Chris admits that God doesn't have one, God can't exist, and this remains true whether or not one conceives of God as having designed the brain. (Chris also said that God doesn't have cognitive mental processes. That's quite interesting. Any other Christians out there want to admit to worshipping a vegetable?)

The argument from the physical nature of minds stands as a sound argument for the reasonableness of disbelief.


5. Suffering

In my opening statement, I argued that the vast amount of suffering and premature death makes more sense given the nonexistence of God than the existence of God.

Chris responded to this simply by saying that suffering exists for purposes of contrast; we could not know pleasure unless we also know suffering. Even granting that some amount of suffering is necessary for purposes of contrast, however, there is no reason to think that the vast amount of suffering that currently exists is necessary. As Madden and Hare put it, "We need little pain by way of contrast to get the point: one might be allowed to bite his lip occasionally rather than have cancer of the mouth."[1]

Chris's remarks with respect of what difference suffering makes under atheism are irrelevant, for reasons which, by this point, I hope I need not belabor.

The argument from suffering stands as a sound argument for the reasonableness of disbelief.


6. Nonbelief

In my opening statement, I argued that the great amount of nonbelief in the gospel message in the world makes the existence of the Christian God unlikely.

Chris responded to this, first, by saying that Jesus mentions that most will choose not to follow God. Even if true, this is beside the point. There is a difference between being aware of the factual propositions of the gospel message and choosing to follow Jesus in the sense of worshipping the Christian God and doing that which is required for salvation. A person can be aware of the former, and choose not to do the latter (Satan, for instance). If God existed, however, he would make all humans aware of the truth of the gospel message so that they could make an informed decision; otherwise it would be like a college professor giving his entire class an assignment on which their grade depends, but only some class members the information necessary to complete the assignment, which is clearly unreasonable.

Chris then said that "God's divine nature has been witnessed to all men. Therefore, God will judge justly according to the knowledge of that individual. It is not the rehearsal of the Christian doctrines themselves that paves the way for salvation, but the overall acknowledgement and acceptance of the divine meaning behind those words." This seems to be saying that God judges those who are ignorant of Christianity according to whether they would accept Christ or not given the opportunity. This view, however, has little or no Biblical support -- and is in fact inconsistent with many passages of the Bible, including John 3:18,36, 8:24b, 14:6, Acts 4:12, 1 John 2:23, 5:12. These passages make it clear that one must believe in Christ, and not just "the light that he had," to use Craig's words, in order to be saved.

In any event, even if Chris's objections were valid, there is still a great deal of support for the argument from nonbelief that does not depend on an exclusivist interpretation of salvation, which Chris did not address. Thus, the argument from nonbelief stands as a sound argument for the reasonableness of disbelief.


7. Divine Silence

In my opening statement, I argued that divine silence makes more sense given disbelief than belief; therefore disbelief is more reasonable.

Aside from a bit of evangelism and rehashing of arguments from incredulity, Chris's response is that "this feeling does not produce from those who honestly seek God's presence, but from those have addressed God in order to fulfill their own agenda." He does not demonstrate that this is the case. He just asserts it. (Are you noticing a pattern here?) Once again, therefore, I need only respond with an assertion of my own: That turns out not to be the case.

In any case, this response assumes that everyone, thoughout the entirety of human history, who claimed to have honestly sought God and not found him lied about it. That is obviously an outrageous and unrealistic hypothesis.

Thus, the argument from divine silence stands as a sound argument for the reasonableness of disbelief.


Conclusion and Summary

Well, this is a bit awkward. I have completely demolished Chris's attempts to critize my opening case, and have done so with -- up to this point -- less than half the allotted word count and only a single citation. I tried to address all of Chris's relevant points, but if there are any I have overlooked, please bring them to my attention through private message.

I was tempted to artificially lengthen the body of this statement, say by writing a sex scene in the "envy and lust" section (because as a novelist friend of mine likes to say, sex eats word count!), but better taste prevailed. I will conclude, then, in a more constructive manner by giving a few words of advice for Chris, for the final round of this debate and afterwards.

First, brush up on your logical fallicies, because your statements to date have been full of them, apparently without your knowledge.[2]

Second, although you seem to have acquired from your apologetics mentor, William Lane Craig, a fondness for using rhetorical tricks -- such as soundbites, slogans and appeals to intuition and authority -- as substitutes for actual arguments, this is a practice to be avoided.

Third and finally, look at the other side of the story, because your performance thus far suggests that you are very much unfamiliar with anything other than the Christians' caricitures of the non-Christians' positions on these issues. You spent some time on IIDB prior to this debate, and non-Christians have made attempts to explain their reasoning to you, but there is nothing to indicate that you have actually listened. Open your eyes, and open your mind. Learn what we have to say about these matters, in our own words -- not by reading the few cherry-picked quotes from atheists that may have filtered down through your apologetics sources, but by reading our books, papers and websites. Explore for yourself. Consider what we have to say. Allow for the possibility that your mind may change as a result of your consideration, and don't be afraid of that -- speaking from personal experience, conce