Thank you
Sum1hugme for posting your argument.
If I (Con) prove that there is a high change/probability that the God of the Bible exists, then I win.
We first have speculated the possible existence of a God in order to move on. With this simple example I can do that.
Imagine there is a circle. This circle contains all possible knowledge. All the sciences and all the arts, basically everything that is and could be possibly known exists in this circle. Humanity itself would not be able to fill in that circle with the knowledge that we have today, in fact we wouldn't even be able to fill half of it. So, it is possible that the knowledge we haven't yet discovered, is proof of God himself. So, it more than likely possible that God exists in that sense.
Now we move on to proving that the God of the Bible exists.
Faith
Now faith itself doesn't help to prove the likelihood of the existence of God, but the idea itself does.
There are many scriptures in the bible that talk about faith in God, one of the more prominent ones, being 2 Corinthians 5:7.
2 Corinthians 5:7: "For we live by faith, not by sight. (Hebrews 11:6) And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
If Christians suddenly came out with hardcore proof of Gods existence, that even atheists couldn't argue against, then that would be horrible. Of course, something like that is very unlikely to happen. But if it did, then that would cause everyone to believe in God, only because of factual proof, and not faith alone. They would only want to be saved for their own convenience, and not the reason that God would want them to.
By a multitude of Christians having faith, and the Bible sticking true to this narrative, it helps to prove the God of the Bible's existence even more.
History
A lot of scholars and historians agree that Jesus was in fact a real person and lived the life that the Bible described. Even Roman historians like Pliny and Tacitus, (who we have proved to be real people) who had some level of hatred for Christians can verify that Jesus did exist.
"Roman historians Pliny and Tacitus also wrote about Jesus Christ about 20 years after Josephus’s book. The “Annals” by Tacitus from AD 115 mentioned the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate executing Jesus, alluding to crucifixion, and placed that event within the timeframe that agrees with Christian gospels. As you can also see in this excerpt, Tacitus was not a big fan of the Christians:
“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called “Chrestians” by the populace,” wrote Tacitus.” Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”"
But this is not all. There are also eyewitness testimonies to Jesus's existence.
I will save the rest of my arguments for my next post.
you can say "is" its not an impossible proof. impossible to you and your logic? perhaps. but thats what debates are about. attempting to convince someone of something they dont accept/believe.
but that would mean you have no desire to regard God as existing or provable. How strange.
it just means you want to find a new way to not believe in him to satisfy your ego.
I'd object to that - "probably" implies a strong likelihood, more than just "greater than 50%."
That's just a verbose rendition of the resolution.
A better way to say it might be, "On balance, it is more likely than not that the God of the Bible does not exist."
It's more difficult to argue that it "is" true, because that would shoulder an impossible burden of proof
Just be aware that it is difficult to argue with the word "probably," because it inherently implies that the opposite may be true.
The best our knowledge of god's existence can say is that it's likely or unlikely, because certainty on this topic is impossible.
"Probably" is not a strong argumentative word. You can't argue with the word "probably" because it implies that the instigator is unsure of their view, or, that there is possibility that they are wrong. If you are sure of your view, I would recommend removing the "probably."