Instigator / Pro
2
1465
rating
34
debates
57.35%
won
Topic
#5954
Being Agnostic Is More Logical Than Being Christian
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1500
rating
9
debates
72.22%
won
Description
This general topic has been disputed many times on this website. Just a few years ago I was on the other side of this conflict, but some of the amazing debaters on the site managed to change my mind. I'd like to see how well grounded my beliefs are now.
Merriam Webster will be used for all definitions.
Round 1
Pro
#1
I grew up as a devout evangelical, and I still try to live my life as if there is a god. Though when I considered the facts and the evidence, I was forced to change my stance on the issue.
I intend to prove my case through the following premises:
- The evidence does not live up to the claim.
- The problem of suffering.
- The incompatibility of heaven and hell.
Definitions:
Pro must prove that it is most logical to withhold belief in Christianity, while Con must prove it is most logical to place certainty in the resurrection of Jesus and the existence of a christian god.
1. The Evidence Does Not Live Up to the Claim
Would You Believe This?
Perpetual motion is impossible due to its violation of the laws of physics, or that what was formerly believed. 2,000 years ago there was a man who invented a perpetual motion device. You want to see the invention? Sorry, it was a one-time thing. Good news though; there were hundreds of witnesses. Bad news; you can't talk to them, they're very dead. Fortunately for us, there are written accounts... but unfortunately there are only four of them. And they used each other as sources. And they were written decades after the occurrence.
Perpetual motion is impossible due to its violation of the laws of physics, or that what was formerly believed. 2,000 years ago there was a man who invented a perpetual motion device. You want to see the invention? Sorry, it was a one-time thing. Good news though; there were hundreds of witnesses. Bad news; you can't talk to them, they're very dead. Fortunately for us, there are written accounts... but unfortunately there are only four of them. And they used each other as sources. And they were written decades after the occurrence.
The Massive Burden of Proof
Obviously, you're going to need more evidence than that to prove something impossible happened. I do not dispute that there is indeed some evidence for the resurrection, however, I do not believe that this evidence comes anywhere close enough to prove that something as miraculous as the resurrection occurred. Something that cannot be recreated or tested. Proving someone rose from the dead is a massive burden of proof.
That leads me to my second point. If god is real, why doesn't he give us an undeniable amount of evidence?
2. The Problem of Suffering
The Problem of Divine Hiddenness.
What motive does god have to hide from us? It should be the other way around. If god wants to be in relation with us, then why is his only method of communication some passages that were written hundreds of years ago and that are greatly contested historically? If god's only means of communication is the bible, then why did he allow it to be so flawed? Take the death of Judas for an example. In the book of Acts he died from a fall. In the book of Mathew he hanged himself.
Another related issue. If two people are praying about, say, abortion, they can come out of it with two very different ideas of what god wants. Why doesn't he answer our prayers clearly and directly?
The Problem of Pain
You've heard this one before, and that's because it's a good one.
- God is omnipotent and all loving.
- An omnipotent and all loving god wouldn't permit such terrible misery for his creations.
- Therefore, an all-powerful all-loving god is illogical.
The Free Will Response
Many Christians believe suffering is a necessary byproduct of freewill. Then what about cancer and natural disasters? Why would god allow such seemingly meaningless pain?
The Relativity Response
Others argue that in a world where pain is not known, pleasure can not be appreciated. This argument is forgetting that god would be omnipotent. A hurdle like this would be effortless to cross. An omnipotent being could absolutely make it so people could appreciate joy without their child getting cancer first.
The Incompatibility of Heaven and Hell
Loved Ones in Hell
Whatever hell is like, the bible makes clear one thing: It is NOT a fun place to be. I don't understand how someone can be perfectly contented in heaven while their loved ones suffer in hell for eternity. "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Matthew 25:46
Unjust Condemnation
If you were to be born into a Buddhist family and grew up retaining that faith, while living an extremely moral life, you would be eternally punished according to the bible. "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." John 3:18. Why is this something that should be eternally punished? On that matter, how is eternal punishment for finite crime ever fair, whatever that crime may be?
Sources used:
The Holy Bible
Con
#2
Thank you Owen_T for the opportunity to debate this.
To start off, I will present the basis for my arguments against the principles of agnosticism. If you actually look at this honestly, I think you will realize that the principles of agnosticism are at best a compromise with that absurd philosophical system called skepticism. Agnosticism is best put into words with the Humeric principle of knowledge that goes as follows:
"All Human knowledge solely derives from experience." - David Hume
Or in more modern terms: If there is no physical evidence, then we cannot know it is true.
Which to any honest mind begs the immediate and most important question: where is the evidence that says that?
Of course, there is none. So his very principle falls to pieces under its own demanding criteria. And hence also, any system of thought that tries to prove that a reasoned to conclusion cannot be known if there is no physical evidence of it. One of which is agnosticism.
To argue against this one must simply show that reasoned to conclusions, axioms, physical experience and a proper faith are the ways to know something is true.
- Axioms: These are self evident principles that demonstrate the fundamentals of reality and knowledge. Such as: A thing is what it is.
- Reasoned to conclusions: these are the demonstrations coming from our ability to reason and give conclusions exempt from physical evidence if the conclusion is of such a nature that physical evidence is simply not in question.
- physical experience: This has its place in knowledge, namely where it all starts but that does not mean it ends there. It is absurd to deny the reality in front of us. If we deny this part of knowledge then we deny the thing by which we began to know, which logically means we deny everything.
- A proper faith: Faith is to accept as true based on the word of another because of their authority or credibility. For example: I have no way of knowing that I was born on March 12th except by the word of my parents.
With that I will delve into the debate.
My approach to this debate will be as follows:
I will first present arguments for God's existence to dispute agnosticism
I will then present arguments for Catholicism. I do not, on principle, defend Protestants so my stance, definitions, and ideas come from the Catholic Church.
Lastly, I will address Pro's arguments.
1.) Arguments for the existence of God
I will present 3 different arguments that will demonstrate that God must exist, is a personal and intelligent Being and lastly that He is spiritual.
- Argument from Actuality: It is reasoned to knowledge that being is divided into complete being (what is), or incomplete being (what could be). According to the principles of causality, what is incomplete being must be made complete being by something already having a complete being because something cannot come from nothing. In order to maintain the principles of causality without falling into absurdity, we must posit a first complete being. Not only must it be complete being, it must be purely complete. This pure "what is" we call God.
- Argument from Participation: All being is a participation in being itself i.e. this pure "what is" God. This means that God has in their perfection those things that elevate us to greater being, namely personhood and intelligence. ( I will include here volition but because that is its own argument I will not explain it.) This would mean that God is a person and is intelligent.
- Argument from the gradation of being: There are different degrees of being. What has more "what is" so to speak has greater being. For example those things with life have more being than a rock. By analogy, those things that lack being have more of "what could be" and so we can say by analogy that since God does have any "what could be" as shown above, He would therefore have no matter/composition (these things imply by their very nature that they have "what could be"). Having no matter/composition means that He must be spiritual. Spiritual means above matter. It does not necessarily mean incompatible with it.
The above arguments are very shortened due to limited character space. There is a lot more there than what I said.
2.) Arguments for Catholicism
If God is one who transcends nature, then He must be able to control it. Hence His approval of a messenger will be demonstrated by His divine workings of nature namely: miracles and prophecies.
Jesus Christ who performed such miracles and fulfilled prophecies would then be an approved messenger of God. Hence His message would be one we ought to listen to. His message was that He had come to redeem man and that He was God. Hence we ought to follow the Church He founded which today is known as the Catholic Church.
This of course begs the question how do we know this in our time?
First we have to establish that Christ actually existed. https://www.bing.com/search?q=non+biblical+references+to+christ&pc=GD02&form=GDATVP&ptag=3601&adlt_set=strict
Here are some references that show He existed.
I will add here that since it is clear He existed, those things written of Him are best to be found by those who knew Him personally and wrote of Him. Hence the four Gospels are actually going to be your best source. And it is intellectually dishonest to a priori rule out the possibility of supernatural occurrences in these accounts related to Jesus Christ.
Secondly, We have to establish they were written by those who say they wrote it.https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-gospels
This link gives a very informative take on it. However it will be noted that authorship is known through Sacred Tradition. Not the bible itself. It was taught by those who knew the authors that they wrote it.
Thirdly and lastly, There is no reason to think these men were crazy or deluded and therefore there accounts are accurate and can be followed. The accounts do not lose credibility with time so there is no reason to doubt what is being said is what happened. It would have to be up to the Church to show that what is recorded is not unreasonable in any way, which the Catholic Church has done pretty thoroughly through Her theologians especially St. Thomas Aquinas.
3.) Rebuttal
The evidence does not live up to the claim.
The evidence is the written accounts given in the Gospels. You cannot have physical evidence of say, Christ walking on the water, here and now because it is a historical claim. This would be akin to me denying the holocaust because I do not see any jews burning in furnaces here and now. Do you see the problem with your a priori basis? It lacks the intellectual honesty, which it sacrificed for such a rigorous system of knowledge that it logically ought to deny all history. Pro further shows this with the following argument:
Obviously, you're going to need more evidence than that to prove something impossible happened. I do not dispute that there is indeed some evidence for the resurrection, however, I do not believe that this evidence comes anywhere close enough to prove that something as miraculous as the resurrection occurred. Something that cannot be recreated or tested. Proving someone rose from the dead is a massive burden of proof.
By the way, there is nothing against reason to say that a dead man can rise again to life. You cant recreate a resurrection. That is why we call this an article of faith.
The Problem of Divine Hiddenness.What motive does god have to hide from us? It should be the other way around. If god wants to be in relation with us, then why is his only method of communication some passages that were written hundreds of years ago and that are greatly contested historically? If god's only means of communication is the bible, then why did he allow it to be so flawed? Take the death of Judas for an example. In the book of Acts he died from a fall. In the book of Mathew he hanged himself.Another related issue. If two people are praying about, say, abortion, they can come out of it with two very different ideas of what god wants. Why doesn't he answer our prayers clearly and directly?
We are defined as human by our ability to reason. It stands to reason then, that god would want us to know him through reason itself and then further by faith in those things He said about Himself to be true. (Triune, Incarnated in Jesus Christ, etc..). The Bible is also not His only way to communicate with us. That is a very protestant idea. he also wants us to use our reason in regards to moral issues, and if there is doubt to refer to the authority He established, namely the Catholic Church.
The Problem of PainYou've heard this one before, and that's because it's a good one.
- God is omnipotent and all loving.
- An omnipotent and all loving god wouldn't permit such terrible misery for his creations.
- Therefore, an all-powerful all-loving god is illogical.
The Free Will ResponseMany Christians believe suffering is a necessary byproduct of freewill. Then what about cancer and natural disasters? Why would god allow such seemingly meaningless pain?The Relativity ResponseOthers argue that in a world where pain is not known, pleasure can not be appreciated. This argument is forgetting that god would be omnipotent. A hurdle like this would be effortless to cross. An omnipotent being could absolutely make it so people could appreciate joy without their child getting cancer first.
Unfortunately there is not much character space left, but short answer: God wills that all souls unite themself to His beloved Son and become more like unto Him. He suffered and died on the cross for us. So ought we to pick up our cross and follow Him.
To address Pro's last point quickly, We go to Heaven or Hell by our own choice. God ensures all souls get the necessary means to reach Heaven. The last part about loved ones in Hell needs more space to discuss. I will post it in the comments.
Round 2
Pro
#3
My Arguments:
1.) The Evidence Does Not Live Up to the Claim
"You cannot have physical evidence of say, Christ walking on the water, here and now because it is a historical claim. This would be akin to me denying the holocaust because I do not see any jews burning in furnaces here and now."
Historical claims still require evidence. I never mentioned physical evidence. The historical evidence is what I am challenging. For the holocaust we have evidence such as photographs and survivor's accounts, far more than what we have for the resurrection. This is definitely a false comparison fallacy.
"By the way, there is nothing against reason to say that a dead man can rise again to life. You cant recreate a resurrection. That is why we call this an article of faith."
It's seems you're saying that resurrection requires an article of faith, meaning it can't be completely justified by logic. Historical claims, especially ones of such significance as the resurrection, requires equally significant historical evidence.
2.) The Problem of Suffering
Divine Hiddenness
"The Bible is also not His only way to communicate with us."
Could you please specify the other ways?
Still, why would god allow his holy book to be so imperfect? I again extend the example of the contradictory account of Judas' death. If god wanted us to come to him through logic, then he would have made the evidence he left us pure and not so prone to controversy.
3.) The Incompatibility of Heaven and Hell
To address Pro's last point quickly, We go to Heaven or Hell by our own choice. God ensures all souls get the necessary means to reach Heaven. The last part about loved ones in Hell needs more space to discuss. I will post it in the comments.
I still do not understand how finite crime (in this case ignorance) merits an eternity of punishment. I also do not understand why simply being ignorant warrants any punishment at all. If someone grows up is Saudi Arabia, subscribes to the Muslim faith, and truly believes they are following a godly and moral path, what have they done wrong?
Rebuttals:
1.) Arguments for the existence of God
I will not dispute the existence of a supernatural force or a higher being in this debate. You made some wonderful arguments for the existence of the Great Spaghetti Monster. ;)
2.) Arguments for Catholicism
I do not dispute the existence of Jesus.
"We have to establish they were written by those who say they wrote it.https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-gospels"
This argument provides compelling evidence both for and against the apostles being the authors.
"At the end of the day, the gospels are still anonymous... none of the evidence for or against these authors is 100% conclusive."
I would argue that simply citing this article does not fully establish the claim.
"Thirdly and lastly, There is no reason to think these men were crazy or deluded and therefore there accounts are accurate and can be followed. The accounts do not lose credibility with time so there is no reason to doubt what is being said is what happened."
What does however damage the credibility are things such as the contradicting accounts of Judas' death. There are other contradictions but this one is by far (in my opinion) the most prevalent. For a claim as big as the resurrection, we need very trustworthy evidence.
"And it is intellectually dishonest to a priori rule out the possibility of supernatural occurrences in these accounts related to Jesus Christ."
I'm not ruling out the supernatural, but only extremely skeptical of it. Going back to the perpetual motion example; if something denies our current understanding of scientific knowledge, then I'm going to need a lot more evidence than just a few accounts to convince me.
Con
#4
Thank you Owen_T for your response.
I will get into rebuttals right away.
Pro's argument: Evidence does not live up to the claim.
Con's argument: Historical claims do not necessarily require physical evidence i.e. what can be tested and recreated.
Pro's argument: Historical claims still need evidence.
I respond that such claims that are made in the New Testament, by their very nature, cannot have direct evidence. Only at best, indirect. Like the tomb of Christ being empty. This is why we call them articles of faith. We accept them as true based on the word of those who were witnesses and wrote them down or based on those who recorded the witnesses accounts.
Essentially, Pro is trying to enforce a method of knowledge that by the very nature of the claim is simply not the proper way to know if it true. There are other ways to know something, as I pointed out in R1. Pro is essentially trying to force a physical experience/ reasoned to conclusion way of knowing on something that requires a proper faith to know is true.
It's seems you're saying that resurrection requires an article of faith, meaning it can't be completely justified by logic. Historical claims, especially ones of such significance as the resurrection, requires equally significant historical evidence.
It cannot be explained completely by human reason how something like that is done. The Resurrection is after all a mystery that human reason can only go so far to explain. At the very least, we have to show that it is not unreasonable. Meaning that it is not a logical impossibility. The Church has thoroughly beaten that question to death with the exhaustive theology of Her Church Fathers and Theologians.
Divine Hiddenness"The Bible is also not His only way to communicate with us."Could you please specify the other ways?
Through the Church He established. Through what we call our duty of state. Through mishaps, mistakes, legitimate orders from legitimate superiors, Through circumstances in our life that point us to do something versus another thing, etc... to name a few.
Still, why would god allow his holy book to be so imperfect? I again extend the example of the contradictory account of Judas' death. If god wanted us to come to him through logic, then he would have made the evidence he left us pure and not so prone to controversy.
Those who look for error will find it even when it is not there. Most certainly there are those who look for contradictions because they want to find something. As in the case above with Judas death, they do not contradict. A simple timeline can answer this. Judas went to the high priest, threw the money down, they told him to go and buy a field with it since they could not put it in the collection since it was the price of blood. Judas then hung himself in the field he bought and when he was cut down his bowels burst asunder. No contradiction between the accounts. An important principle when studying the scripture is to remember that the author is writing from what they saw or heard. There is no reason to think that each gave an entire picture of what happened. Hence, why we say the Gospels together make a complete narrative. Not separately.
I still do not understand how finite crime (in this case ignorance) merits an eternity of punishment. I also do not understand why simply being ignorant warrants any punishment at all. If someone grows up is Saudi Arabia, subscribes to the Muslim faith, and truly believes they are following a godly and moral path, what have they done wrong?
It is important to firstly note that sin is an infinite offense because of the One offended namely God. No sin is finite in this sense. Also ignorance does not necessarily mean one is going to hell. If one lived a godly life and followed his reason as best he could and died like that, it stands to reason he will not go to hell. What happens to him, we do not know. The Catholic Church does not claim to know either. Any thing said otherwise is at best the opinion of some theologian.
Like I said, God gives the grace for every soul to save themselves. If through some ignorance that soul does not recognize that grace it does not necessarily mean they go to hell.
This argument provides compelling evidence both for and against the apostles being the authors."At the end of the day, the gospels are still anonymous... none of the evidence for or against these authors is 100% conclusive."I would argue that simply citing this article does not fully establish the claim.
The article demonstrated that we know the authorship through Sacred Tradition, which are the teachings handed down by the Apostles to their followers. It showed that the question of authorship is determined by the Authority of the Catholic Church Through Her Sacred Tradition. While the article was trying to apply the wrong method of knowing, it still acknowledged that we know best through Sacred Tradition:
Tradition considers these men the authors, but there’s one problem: not one of these books names its author.
With the problem of the authors not naming themselves, it is left up to the authority of those who safeguard its meaning through those teachings handed down by the Apostles namely the Catholic Church.
"Thirdly and lastly, There is no reason to think these men were crazy or deluded and therefore there accounts are accurate and can be followed. The accounts do not lose credibility with time so there is no reason to doubt what is being said is what happened."What does however damage the credibility are things such as the contradicting accounts of Judas' death. There are other contradictions but this one is by far (in my opinion) the most prevalent. For a claim as big as the resurrection, we need very trustworthy evidence."And it is intellectually dishonest to a priori rule out the possibility of supernatural occurrences in these accounts related to Jesus Christ."I'm not ruling out the supernatural, but only extremely skeptical of it. Going back to the perpetual motion example; if something denies our current understanding of scientific knowledge, then I'm going to need a lot more evidence than just a few accounts to convince me.
All of this I addressed above. Pro is trying to enforce a method of knowledge that by the very nature of the claim is simply not the proper way to know if it true. There are other ways to know something, as I pointed out in R1. Pro is essentially trying to force a physical experience/ reasoned to conclusion way of knowing on something that requires a proper faith to know is true.
Round 3
Pro
#5
A big thanks to Mav99 for the debate, I definitely enjoyed this one.
1.) The Evidence Does Not Live Up to the Claim/Arguments for Catholicism
I am not requesting physical evidence for your claim, merely enough historical evidence. You've stated that the bible is that historical evidence, and that we have to trust it through faith, which you have defined "... to accept as true based on the word of another because of their authority or credibility." The evidence for something as extraordinary as the resurrection definitely needs to be absolutely credible, which you have not proven the bible to be. Con's explanation of Judas' death doesn't actually solve the contradiction.
"Judas went to the high priest, threw the money down, they told him to go and buy a field with it since they could not put it in the collection since it was the price of blood. Judas then hung himself in the field he bought and when he was cut down his bowels burst asunder."
Let's consider two accounts.
Matthew 27:5&7 (KJV):
“And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself...And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.”
In this account Judas hangs himself and then the priests take the silver and buy a field. We can be sure it's the priest's purchase as Judas probably wouldn't want to buy a field to bury strangers in. This passage leaves no doubt it was not Judas who purchased the field. Now let's look at the other account:
Acts 1:18 (KJV):
“Now this man (Judas) acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”
The word "acquired" implies the field was under not only purchased by, but also under the possession of Judas. Additionally, it's extremely strange that if Judas did hang himself it wasn't even mentioned. That is a very major detail to skip over so seamlessly. Why would they mention him being cut down without even mentioning him being hanged?
2.) The Problem of Divine Hiddenness
"Through the Church He established. Through what we call our duty of state. Through mishaps, mistakes, legitimate orders from legitimate superiors, Through circumstances in our life that point us to do something versus another thing, etc... to name a few "
Imagine for a moment the Catholic Church from the perspective of an outsider - Magdalene laundries, absolving sins for money, a whole lot of naughty touching, and a plethora of other incidents. You can see why the church looks less like the instrument of god and more like something to stay far away from. It's done more than enough to cause people to doubt its authority.
3.) The Incompatibility of Heaven and Hell
"Like I said, God gives the grace for every soul to save themselves. If through some ignorance that soul does not recognize that grace it does not necessarily mean they go to hell."
The Bible disagrees.
"Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." - Galatians 2:16
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
"For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." - Romans 3:28
Conclusion
The victor of this debate will ultimately be decided by the burden of proof needed for a miracle. Fulfilling this giant burden of proof is going to take more than placing our faith in just four written accounts. Accounts of which we are not even sure of the author, accounts that either contradict eachother or exclude very important details from the narrative.
To convince you that the Great Spaghetti Monster came down to earth and broke The Second Law of Thermodynamics two-thousand years ago, I'd need a heck of a lot more evidence than a few written accounts and an organization to back them up. It's definitely possible, but to believe it would be far from logical.
Sources
The Catholic Church:
The Authorship Article:
I also used A.I. to help me find bible verses. (I of course verified them.)
Con
#6
Thank you Owen_T for your response.
I will present my rebuttals only in this last round.
I am not requesting physical evidence for your claim, merely enough historical evidence. You've stated that the bible is that historical evidence, and that we have to trust it through faith, which you have defined "... to accept as true based on the word of another because of their authority or credibility." The evidence for something as extraordinary as the resurrection definitely needs to be absolutely credible, which you have not proven the bible to be.
Historical evidence is mainly determined through primary sources. The primary sources are the four accounts of Christ's life commonly called the Gospels. All say that He rose from the dead. Because of the extraordinary nature of the claim and the fact that it happened at the time it did it takes a proper faith, namely accepting as true because they are the credible sources, to accept the resurrection as true.
The Bible definitely has enough credibility behind it if one does not have an a priori bias against the possibility of the supernatural. Doubts against it have come from less than intellectually honest scholars who have said bias to begin with.
Due to limited character space I present the above article. But to be honest, it takes a lot of personal study to determine it for yourself. If you are not really willing to do that, there is no amount of anything I can say that will convince you otherwise.
In this account Judas hangs himself and then the priests take the silver and buy a field. We can be sure it's the priest's purchase as Judas probably wouldn't want to buy a field to bury strangers in. This passage leaves no doubt it was not Judas who purchased the field.
The accounts say that both bought the potters field which is not necessarily a contradiction. It can be said that Judas tried to give it back but since the priest could not take it back they bought a field in his name with it.
The word "acquired" implies the field was under not only purchased by, but also under the possession of Judas. Additionally, it's extremely strange that if Judas did hang himself it wasn't even mentioned. That is a very major detail to skip over so seamlessly. Why would they mention him being cut down without even mentioning him being hanged?
It can be said the author was trying to emphasize certain aspects. He does not need to give the entire story, especially if He was trying to emphasize the consequences of evil (his bowels bursting asunder) versus the wickedness of his will (by hanging himself) Like I said in R2: All that is written is taken together and not individually.
Imagine for a moment the Catholic Church from the perspective of an outsider - Magdalene laundries, absolving sins for money, a whole lot of naughty touching, and a plethora of other incidents. You can see why the church looks less like the instrument of god and more like something to stay far away from. It's done more than enough to cause people to doubt its authority.
Yes well, I can say the same thing about politicians, medical institutions, etc...
The point is that that is irrelevant to the question at hand. The Holiness of the Church is not determined by the Holiness of all its members. I can give a list of people and events that show against what you are saying. If the outsider only sees that about the Catholic Church, I suggest he be a little more intellectually honest and get a new source of information.
Not to mention that has nothing to do with the question of Divine Hiddenness.
"Like I said, God gives the grace for every soul to save themselves. If through some ignorance that soul does not recognize that grace it does not necessarily mean they go to hell."The Bible disagrees."Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." - Galatians 2:16"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9"For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." - Romans 3:28
The Bible does not disagree with what I am saying. The bible above is referring to those who are not in ignorance. Pro here is trying to generalize what is being said in the Bible. Remember The bible is still studied under the light of reason (as far as reason will take it). If something contradicts reason in the bible then that means you are reading it wrong.
Conclusion
Pro has ultimately asked for historical evidence and when primary sources were given He ultimately denied them due to the extraordinary claim contained within. It is not logical to reject the primary sources for historical events.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro set himself up for failure right from the beginning by ignoring a major definition of "agnostic,", i.e., that it extends beyond doubt of belief in God to doubt in belief of anything. "Agnostic" denies, by Merriam Webster definition, anything one wants to oppose belief in, end of story. That is a very non-specific stand that cannot be supported by logic, alone, whereas Pro established "logic" as an underpinning concept on which to defend the Resolution. That logic is an unsupportable argument, which Con successfully argued against in R1, stating the logic of "noting comes from nothing." Total denial, or even total skepticism - the scope if agnosticism - is an illogical construct, as Con established in R1, and throughout his debate.
Con's successful argument regarding sourcing, including the Bible, but not exclusively so, demonstrated the historicity of Jesus by several non-biblical sources in R1. Pro claimed these historic references were not legitimate, using the example of liven g survivors of the holocaust as being current eyewitnesses, being more credible than historic references. In 100 years, ir less, when all survivors of the Holocaust are dead, they will no longer by living witnesses, but that will not deny the historic evidence of tgheHolocaust, which will trash prod failed argument.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "complete faith" here. It obviously is reliant on an authority behind the sources due to the inability to test/those things that are claimed in it. Like I said in my round 1, there has to be an authority behind the bible, or it would be unreasonable to believe it.
When you talk about needing to take the word of historical sources, I wanted to add that we use academic skepticism as a tool to logically determine the trustworthiness of a specific historical source (to try and avoid simply putting our trust in a historical sources word). Pro's logic would indeed lead them to believe that the holocaust happened, because historical sources from that time can be cross-referenced with one another (along with physical evidence like the architecture of concentration camps) to epistemologically verify the trustworthiness of the individual claims made by a source. When discussing which belief is more logical, it's important to acknowledge historical sources only deserve to be treated as fact when it is reasonable to do so, and should otherwise be considered with varying amounts of skepticism. The historical sources accounting Jesus's actions cannot be validated and proven reliable to the standard to logically justify placing complete faith in those sources today. For example, the idea that all authors of the gospel personally knew or witnessed Jesus's actions is heavily contested, and these things should logically be taken into consideration when judging the amount of faith we ought to place in their written accounts of his actions. I acknowledge you treat these historical sources as fact because it is required to logically maintain your preexisting belief in the religion, but it creates a kind of circular argument where you believe your belief to be more logical because you already think it's true. It may be the case that those who wrote the gospel were indeed telling the truth and it's all fact, but when considering what we should be inclined to believe following the rules of logic, the extreme claims of Jesus's actions supported by historical claims that cannot be epistemologically validated and proven reliable as we look to do today make putting complete faith into these sources less logical than being skeptical of them.
Essentially, What we see in loved ones is something God has in His perfection, so we don't lose anything as long as we have Him. While it may sound hard, it is true to say that the souls in Heaven do not care about the souls in Hell, because those souls have chosen to separate themselves from God for all eternity.
Three kinds of people:
Make things happen
Watch what happens
Wonder what happened
Guess where I put agnosticism (which has a greater scope than just religion)?