But according to information experts and evidence analysts, it can only be considered evidence if it belongs to one of these four categories, as there are only four types of evidence
My opponent is trying to change definition of evidence, and per rules in description, he loses debate:
"Upon accepting, Con agrees to this definition and must use it in whole debate. If Con does not agree to this definition, he loses the debate."
So basically, since he based his whole case on different definition than the one he agreed to, he loses.
What information? How can we verify it?
The debate doesnt even require me to prove what information, it just requires me to prove that there is some information. But the source already said that many Christians became Christians because of their parents, who obviously provided them some information about Christian God which lead them to conclusion that Christian God exists. In fact, the mere conclusion that Christian God (as described in Bible) exists requires by tautology some information about that Christian God.
There is a quote that identifies ignorance as the root cause of religion
Sadly, random quotes dont mean anything in debate. But such quote is false, as the very conclusion of Christian God being real requires some information, at least about Christian God himself.
There have been no demonstrations that the book or the 'miracle' has successfully converted non-christians to christians
This debate isnt about converting non-Christians to Christians, but given that Christians are the largest religious group, its obvious that it has some information which leads people to convert to it. Christians started at only few dozen people, and now there is over 2 billion of them.
The source already clearly mentioned that this miracle further led parents to conclusion that Christian God exists. The argument here isnt that only one information leads to such given conclusion. That would be strawman. Multiple different information can lead to same conclusion independently.
And if doctors missed it, that means there is information that is lacking
This is both strawman and unproved. Information doesnt stop being information even if some other information is lacking.
Information definition:
"knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction"
Another definition:
"the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence"
So it doesnt mean all knowledge. You dont need all knowledge in the universe to be led to conclusion.
If admissible, this would count as testimonial evidence. But Pro's own source concedes that the reports and legends are unreliable, making the information factually inadmissible. Now about the existence of the apostles, is there any way to verify or record their existence historically?
The source says that not all legends are reliable, but it says that all available documents point to the fact that apostles did indeed suffer a lot. Their willing collective suffering and sacrifice is one of the most convincing information about Christianity, and many people convert to Christianity after learning information such as these.
My opponent didnt even challenge the miracle argument which led child's parents to conclusion, didnt challenge that people do become Christians because of information they receive from others, and most importantly, the historical argument wasnt challenged. Miracles, apostles suffering and the spread of Christianity are all arguments which are used to argue for existence of Christian God, thus used to argue for such conclusion, so they by tautology lead someone to conclusion that Christian God exists, as proved by sources below where multiple persons are convinced by historical argument alone.
"To me, the resurrection of Christ is the fundamental theorem of Christianity"
https://faculty.som.yale.edu/jameschoi/whychrist/
"I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable"
https://unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/
"Because life makes no sense to me apart from Christ. Nor does it have any purpose.
Because I’ve never seen the Gospel narratives refuted successfully. Every critique that’s sought to debunk them throughout the years has been discounted under careful scrutiny and scholarship. The Gospels have stood the test of time.
Because I’ve never seen the resurrection of Jesus refuted successfully. Upon careful study of all the historical data, it actually takes more faith to deny His resurrection than to believe it occurred.
Because it makes no sense to me that Jesus of Nazareth isn’t who He said He was – the Messiah, the Son of the living God. No human being has had nearly the kind of effect on world history as Jesus has (e.g., I’m writing this post in 2012 – what does “2012” mean?). No serious historian denies that Jesus of Nazareth existed (there is more historical attestation for His existence than there is to Julius Caesar and many other ancient figures).
Because Jesus is the most compelling, intriguing, awe-inspiring, and amazing person I know of who is worthy of the greatest admiration, obedience, love, and (uniquely) worship. To my mind, truth, justice, and beauty are all grounded in Him, and His story (as told in the Gospels) trumps every other story known to humanity.
In my experience and observation at least, Jesus transforms people’s lives greater than anything else on the face of the Earth.
Because there is no rational explanation for some of the prayers that I (and others I know) have seen answered “in Jesus’ name"
https://hhjonline.com/reasons-why-i-am-a-christian/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/15urep7/what_are_the_best_arguments_for_christianity/?rdt=51637
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information
One vote?
Cant tag RM because he blocked me, but he will probably read this, so: RM, vote if you want here.