Belief in Christianity is not irrational

Now, let me ask you some questions. Where did that initial atom come from? And if there is no god, why and how did it suddenly expand into a universe.

Not just a mess of scattered elements. A universe with rules, life, and probably most impressively, human intellect.

How could a random atom that was just kind of existing, one day independently create such an organized universe.

How did DNA evolve in such a way it created conscious thought? DNA is like a language, and you need a writer for that."

So, we can see, that there is indeed evidence for the existence of god. This evidence makes the claim that a god exists rationa

Just because there is reasonable basis for the existence of a god does not make Christianity in itself logical. What would prove that Christianity is logical, however, is evidence for Jesus of Nazareth and the resurrection.

There are some problems with that though. Jewish people and the Romans alike wanted to ensure that Christianity died out, meaning they needed to make sure no one stole the body. Both of them had guards at their disposal. It makes sense that they would use them to protect the body.

Additionally, it was customary at the time to seal tombs off with large stones to prevent grave robbery. This would of made the task of stealing the body much harder.

Pro did not give enough evidence to say God exists. In order to say God exists, you must prove that he does through the scientific method of Understanding. Not only has Pro not done this, but none of his sources do either. They all range from pure speculation, such as the tomb Christians think was Jeus's tomb, or irrelevance, such as the apostles dying for their faith without regretting it. There is no ACTUAL evidence of the Christian God being real. Thus, Pro's evidence, much like their argument, is a fallacy.

Pro tries to argue that logic is enough to justify Christian Beliefs. However, that itself is yet another fallacy because we know that logic can justify any belief, even when it is false...Pro cannot claim that Christianity is rational purely by logic alone. Rationality should be grounded in proven facts, not only logic, and when it comes to Christianity, there is nothing to justify it but logic, and it is thus not rational.

When asked if Christianity is a rational belief or not, we must ask ourselves what it means to be rational. It means to have good reason or understanding ...

Pro clearly hasn't done their research on the topic...God doesn't meet the standards of the scientific method of understanding, which requires us to be able to observe God before considering such a being as a theory..."Where did the first atom come from?" is a blatant display of ignorance of the first law of thermodynamics. Which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the first Atom did not "come" from anywhere...

Christianity might be "logical," but it is not rational as it is based on faith, not understanding. Nor do we have actual evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Pro themselves evidence only establishes a location. Not the actual resurrection itself. In fact, from a medical point of view, the resurrection is highly improbable.  One such reason is that someone can only be brought back if clinically dead and a short period of time. Jesus was supposedly dead for four days, which would be beyond clinical death. Not only do we have no evidence of Jesus coming back to life, but its medically proven that he couldn't have been.

This is assuming that Bible Jesus was real at all. Despite Pro's claim, Historians and academics do not support the idea that Jesus of the Bible was real. When talking about Jesus, there is a difference between Jesus known in history and Jesus taught in the Bible.

You are clearly ignoring all of the sources I added.

The cosmological argument is based off of logic and current information available to us. If you think about it, every thing in history is speculation. Speculation based upon logic and evidence. The evidence is the perfectly ordered universe around us. Con has not actually provided anything wrong with the logic or evidence of this argument. I could use all my time talking about it, but that wouldn't be productive. If you want to learn more, here is a link. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

This one just isn't true. As the readers whom have it to this point already know, I provided evidence for my claims, such as the accounts from both apostles and third party historians.

I don't need to address this very strongly, considering I have very clearly defined the definition of rational that is to be used in this debate, as I wanted to ensure that it didn't become about definitions.

We don't need to directly observe god to make an educated inference. We can make an inference through such evidence as the cosmological argument, and through Jesus of Nazareth, which are currently both topics of discussion.

An atom just "existing" doesn't make much sense either. An atom independently expanding into a universe violates the first law of thermodynamics. Additionally, you didn't rebut any of my other points regarding this argument. While the cosmological argument is not conclusive, it's still logical, and that logic is based off of evidence about the universe around us and the evidence of the big bang theory.

That was literally the whole point of the resurrection! If it happened, which I've provided historical evidence for, it was proof of an omnipotent being, and the witnesses were the reason Christianity became so powerful so quickly.

I didn't ignore what you said, pro. I specifically addressed them and explained that they range from mere speculation, such as a tomb that you can't confirm is where Jesus' body was supposedly buried to Irrelevance such as Jesus' apostles dying. So, saying Ignored it is a lie and so is saying I didn't say there was anything wrong with the logic or evidence. I stated what the issues were. You also completely ignored the part where I mentioned that none of your evidence proves God.

You basically provided hearsay to support hearsay. My point was that logic alone is not what defines rationality, and your only source of evidence was from accounts from Jesus followers, which is hearsay and the false assumption that most historians believe in Jesus, which I refuted by showing the Historical version of Jesus is actually what most Historians accept. Not the Bible version.

You didn't give a definite definition of rationality...The closest we have to you giving a definition was saying in the description that irrationality is a groundless belief with no evidence. Besides, if we are going to be dealing in words, we should go by their objective definitions and not subjective ones that were never mentioned.

you need to observe things in order to say you have evidence...By saying you don't need to observe God in order to make an "educated inference," you are openly admitting that you not only lack evidence to justify Christianity

I never said anything about an atom "expanding into the Universe." My point was that the first atom is made from matter; matter, otherwise known as energy, cannot be created or destroyed. That means that the Universe was never created...Atoms, along with anything else that takes up space, are a form of matter. And since matter cannot be created or destroyed,

The Tomb

I didn't include the location because it's not relevant. I don't see why it matters what tomb he was in. However, I understand the point of your argument, so I have attached the tomb that most who have studied the subject believe to be that of Jesus, which the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is build around  Here is my source:

https://www.britannica.com/place/Holy-Sepulchre

The Apostles

The martyring of the apostles due to their faith isn't irrelevant. They could of just repented Jesus, but they didn't. I attached the sources, so don't try to claim I have no evidence for this. 

https://www.equip.org/articles/apostles-really-die-martyrs-faith/

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-do-we-know-that-the-apostles-really-died-as-martyrs/

https://www.biola.edu/blogs/biola-magazine/2013/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs-for-their-f

You're absolutely right, as long as you don't consider the accounts of Suetonius, Flavious,  Thallus, Tacitus, the Jewish People, Celsius, and others. Here is a source I found that sums up all of them mentioned: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

Rationality is the opposite of irrationality. I clearly defined irrationality in the description. It doesn't matter if you don't think the definition I provided is the right one. By agreeing to this debate, you accepted that definition! <--(explanation point to express annoyance)

We can't observe Mesopotamia or living dinosaurs, but we know they were real real things. We know this from looking at remains. The remains in the context of the cosmological argument are things like perfectly structured DNA, cosmic order, and the existence of the universe in general.

https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/the-orderliness-of-the-cosmos-is-far-deeper-than-the-ancients-ever-suspected/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/unnatural-selection/202402/the-psychology-of-the-cosmos

The big bang theory has widespread trust among scientists and scholars alike. A god, a being who created and controls everything, could definitely produce some energy to start the big bang. Saying that the universe has just always existed doesn't make sense. We know the universe has not always existed.

People willing to die for their beliefs do not make the belief itself true. If you want to say the apostles died for Jesus...does not establish for a fact the apostles were right.

So, you're trying to make an appeal of the majority argument. The fallacy in that approach...Pro is that hearsay said by an x amount of people is STILL hearsay... Fact is determined by evidence, not opinion.

You provided a subjective definition of irrationality without defining rationality. Your definitions should have been explicit. Moreover, even from your subjective standpoint, Christianity would be categorized as irrational because you described it as "a belief without evidence." I have already demonstrated that Christianity is based on faith, which is inherently without evidence since faith, by definition, means believing in things that cannot be proven.

You argued we can’t observe dinosaurs yet acknowledge the observable evidence of their remains. While we can’t see them alive, their physical remains are indeed observable. Thus, you are incorrect.

Also, the "Cosmological argument" is riddled with falsehoods. The structure of DNA is not always perfect. For example, incest can cause genetic birth defects. And genetic birth defects are a common occurrence. In fact, over 240,000 newborns die 28 days a year because of it. There is no cosmic order, as anomalies in space are studied and reported every year.

When talking about Jesus, there is a difference between Jesus known in history and Jesus taught in the Bible, .