I really love debating, so much so that I have on occasion defended a position I don't really believe in just for the fun of the discussion. Sadly enough, I've even won some of those debates so I've had to explain that it's not really my position and explain why the arguments I myself have used doesn't hold up... but when it comes to theism I just don't find ANY arguments that even come close to holding up to scrutiny.
So, my question for all theists is: Do you REALLY believe in all that (in my opinion) crap or do you just wish that you could believe it? I don't mean for this to be an insulting question and having lost my father two years ago I can certainly see why one would like to believe in a magical heaven where you can once again meet your loved ones... but wishing for something doesn't make it true so if that is your reason for "believing" it's not a very good one.
Like I said, this is not meant to be an insult, it's a sincere question and even if you find it a stupid one I hope you give honest answers.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I can name three theistic arguments that are considerably powerful. Anything that could refute these three arguments either does not exist, or has yet to be found.
1.) The Universe began to exist.
2.) Beginning to exist is a sufficient condition for requiring a causal explanation.
3.) Therefore, the Universe must have a causal explanation.
1.) The fine-tuning of the Universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2.) It is due to neither physical necessity or chance.
3.) Therefore, it must be due to design.
1.) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2.) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3.) Therefore, necessarily, God exists.
"1.) The Universe began to exist.
2.) Beginning to exist is a sufficient condition for requiring a causal explanation.
3.) Therefore, the Universe must have a causal explanation."
Before even arguing about the terms or assumptions made in this argument, I will simply grant it, because it isn't actually an argument for any god. The universe most probably did have a cause external to itself, and while we may never know or be able to prove what it was, that doesn't actually necessitate a god. We, quite literally, don't have the physics or understanding to determine what conditions before the existence of our universe were, and no amount of jawing and semantics will ever magically turn an unknown into a god.
"1.) The fine-tuning of the Universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2.) It is due to neither physical necessity or chance.
3.) Therefore, it must be due to design."
This argument, quite literally, hinges on the fact that the universe exists in its current state. It really is not different than me saying that because I was born a boy instead of a girl, that magical gender-swapping fairies MUST exist. Arguments concerning likelihood and probability are flawed from the outset, and the argument from design even moreso, because in hinges on a great many unknowns. Do we really know enough about the causal influence of the universe to say for certain what is likely? No. Also, in the broader scope, as many factors are horribly tuned as fine tuned, making the argument purposely narrow in scale and scope.
"1.) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2.) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3.) Therefore, necessarily, God exists."
Eh? Did you just assert that because we hold people accountable for their actions, a god must exist? That doesn't follow, not at all.
"Before even arguing about the terms or assumptions made in this argument, I will simply grant it, because it isn't actually an argument for any god."
There aren't any assumptions made in the argument. Both premise one and two are true, and the conclusion logically follows from the two premises. And of course you would have to grant the argument, it's true.
Secondly, it is an argument for the existence of a god. The cause of the Universe has to be personal, because it is eternal by definition (due to its timelessness which amounts to changelessness). If an impersonal cause is eternal and is *truly* sufficient for the production of its effect, then its effect will have been produced an eternity ago, and will exist eternally and timelessly alongside its cause. It could do nothing literally forever, and then cause its effect. Well, the Universe isn't eternal. This means that it's cause cannot be impersonal, which means that the creation of the Universe was a free act of some intelligent will.
"We, quite literally, don't have the physics or understanding to determine what conditions before the existence of our universe were, and no amount of jawing and semantics will ever magically turn an unknown into a god."
There are no physics and no Universe sans the Big Bang.
"This argument, quite literally, hinges on the fact that the universe exists in its current state. It really is not different than me saying that because I was born a boy instead of a girl, that magical gender-swapping fairies MUST exist."
Your analogy is a non-sequitur, because it does not follow that because you were born a boy instead of a girl that magical fairies exist. That makes your analogy a false analogy (which is a fallacy).
". Arguments concerning likelihood and probability are flawed from the outset, and the argument from design even moreso, because in hinges on a great many unknowns."
The argument doesn't hinge on any unknowns. It is a fact that the Universe is fine-tuned and a great many physicists have admitted it, and have even calculated just how vastly improbably our Universe really is. There are only three options, physical necessity, but the constants of the Universe exist independently of the laws of physics, so they aren't demanded; chance, but the chances are so small that chance becomes unreasonable as an explanation; or design, which, given the latter two options are not viable, is the only viable option left.
"Eh? Did you just assert that because we hold people accountable for their actions, a god must exist? That doesn't follow, not at all."
No, that's not at all what I said. I said that if an objective morality exists, then there must exist some ground or foundation for the objectivity of that morality, and that foundation would have to be a morally superior being.
"There aren't any assumptions made in the argument."
Actually, there are a few.
A. The singularity that the big bang theory doesn't actually explain the origins of, which means that it makes no claims about it "coming into existence", might have existed eternally for all we know because it would have existed before time. I don't, personally, believe that it was eternal, but it could have been, and our theories and models don't actually explain or address its existence fully by any measure. This means your argument is concerning an expansion event from singularity to universe, not nothing to universe, which undermines the cause argument significantly if one considers the singularity to BE the CAUSE.
B. It assumes that the laws of our universe extend outside of it, which isn't actually certain, and commits a fallacy in doing so.
C. It assumes that a cause must have been (X) or (Y) without actually knowing how the universe WAS created, which is putting the cart so far in front of the horse that neither would be in visible range of each other.
"Both premise one and two are true, and the conclusion logically follows from the two premises."
Except, as explained, your premises are based on axiomatic assumptions not actual facts.
"And of course you would have to grant the argument, it's true."
No, actually, I do not. I granted it in this instance because it doesn't make as good a case for god as you think it does.
"Secondly, it is an argument for the existence of a god."
No, it isn't. It is an argument for a "cause" not god, "cause" is an ambiguous enough phrase to allow for almost any kind of cause, not specifically your god.
"The cause of the Universe has to be personal, because it is eternal by definition (due to its timelessness which amounts to changelessness). If an impersonal cause is eternal and is *truly* sufficient for the production of its effect, then its effect will have been produced an eternity ago, and will exist eternally and timelessly alongside its cause. It could do nothing literally forever, and then cause its effect. Well, the Universe isn't eternal. This means that it's cause cannot be impersonal, which means that the creation of the Universe was a free act of some intelligent will."
This is all meaningless drivel in the face of the fact that we do not know enough about the cause of the universe to even meaningfully speculate about what it is or isn't. Unless one can give a specific and exact description of how the universe came to exist, with accompanying evidence and mathematical models, anything they say is pure speculation with about as much thrust as someone suffering from a micropenis and erectile dysfunction.
Also, you are again using laws and physics from inside the universe to explain what may or may not occur outside of it, which is a fallacy. Could time and space exist outside our universe? It is possible. Could this time and space be fundamentally different from the way it is in our universe? It is possible. Thus your entire argument is based on a false assumption and projecting the way our universe works onto everything outside of it.
"There are no physics and no Universe sans the Big Bang."
There could be time and space outside our universe, meaning beyond the big bang, defanging this assertion entirely.
"Your analogy is a non-sequitur, because it does not follow that because you were born a boy instead of a girl that magical fairies exist. That makes your analogy a false analogy (which is a fallacy)."
It is precisely the same as your argument that because there is this universe, instead of another or none at all, a god must exist. It IS the same, in almost exact detail.
"The argument doesn't hinge on any unknowns."
Yes, yes it does.
"It is a fact that the Universe is fine-tuned and a great many physicists have admitted it, and have even calculated just how vastly improbably our Universe really is."
False. To calculate a proper probability you first MUST know the intricate details of what you are calculating. Now, to calculate the probability of any individual property of the universe, you would have to have intricate knowledge of how it came to be and how it functions in its entirety. This has been explained to you before, if I recall correctly, and you are still using this washed up argument?
"There are only three options, physical necessity, but the constants of the Universe exist independently of the laws of physics, so they aren't demanded; chance, but the chances are so small that chance becomes unreasonable as an explanation; or design, which, given the latter two options are not viable, is the only viable option left."
Probability again, a bad argument. The odds that any single individual alive would have been born exactly as they are is miniscule, but that does not stop us from existing and producing even more improbable offspring, the improbable happens with regularity.
"No, that's not at all what I said. I said that if an objective morality exists, then there must exist some ground or foundation for the objectivity of that morality, and that foundation would have to be a morally superior being."
You are being coy here, as you are aware of the way we use "objective" in most every other arena. Inches and pounds are considered objective measurements despite being of human origin, aren't they? The rules of a game are considered objective much the same way, despite being inventions of man. But somehow, suddenly, nothing can really be "objective" unless it is handed down from an absolute authority and dictator? That makes no sense whatsoever, and makes you seem a little disingenuous.
argument 1:
Premise 1 and 2 might be wrong.
argument 2:
contains a hidden premise 0) "The universe is fine turned"
all 3 premises might be wrong.
arguement3:
premise 1 and 2 might be wrong. Additionally, conclusion 3 does not follow from the premises.
So as usual, your three "considerably powerful" arguments, aren't that powerful.
"argument 1:
Premise 1 and 2 might be wrong."
Why? How? All you've done is just provide a baseless assertion. Premise one is a fact; the causal principle is the basis of all of modern science. If things don't have causes:
1.) Then by what means does the effect even happen?
2.) Why don't we see things coming into existence literally causelessly all the time? Since there is no cause, there is nothing to discriminate between what can't and what can't come into existence causelessly.
Premise two is very very plausibly correct, and all of contemporary cosmology supports premise two. To deny this is simply to be willfully ignorant of modern cosmology.
"argument 2:
contains a hidden premise 0) "The universe is fine turned"
all 3 premises might be wrong."
The Universe being fine-tuned is something many, many physicists have attested to, so it is not an assumed premise; the argument does not commit the false premise fallacy.
-http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-...
-http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/finetuning.pdf
So, premise one is true, the Universe is fine-tuned are there are only three possible explanation for this, and the first one fails because the constants that are finely-tuned are independent of the laws of nature, which means they are not physically demanded. The second explanation fails because the chances of the Universe appearing and just randomly exhibiting the extraordinary and vast fine-tuning that it does is *so* infinitesimally small that it becomes unreasonable as an explanation. This leaves only the third option, that the Universe was designed by a higher intelligence.
"arguement3:
premise 1 and 2 might be wrong. Additionally, conclusion 3 does not follow from the premises."
Premise 1 is not wrong, because of objective moral values due exist, then they are objective, meaning this is a foundation for their objectivity. The foundation would have to be a morally superior being or law. And premise two is confirmed everytime you say "that's wrong", or "that's not fair". The only other option one has is that morality is subjective, in which case nothing is really right or wrong, it's all just a matter of opinion; this all means that you can no longer say "that's wrong", or "that's not fair", because that's just your opinion.
That means that the premises are true and the conclusion does logically follow from the three premises, making the argument successful.
"So as usual, your three "considerably powerful" arguments, aren't that powerful."
So, as usual, you've just baselessly asserted that the arguments fail and that certain premises/conclusions might be wrong, but did not actually provide a demonstration of such. My three considerably powerful arguments still stand as considerably powerful.
This is what the theists do, and are very goo at...grasping at straws and attempting to bullshit around anything that makes sense...
S.o.G.
Firstly:
For the sake of honest discourse, perhaps you should start by mentioning that you are a "time relativist", or how was it you put it? I.e. that you have a different definition of time, than everyone else. Instead of mentioning that at the end of the debate.
Secondly:
What god are you trying to argue for? You use capital 'G', as if you are referring to a specific god. Is it the Christian god? I seem to remember that you agree that the bible was written by fallible men. Is that the case?
If your god is the Christian god, what denomination? What in your arguments connects to that specific god?
The Pragmatic - "For the sake of honest discourse, perhaps you should start by mentioning that you are a "time relativist", or how was it you put it? I.e. that you have a different definition of time, than everyone else. Instead of mentioning that at the end of the debate."
Oh yeah, that's right! Didn't he define it something like dt/dx instead of dx/dt? If you look out the left window, you can wave goodbye to calculus and physics, as it quickly retreats into the distance!
To regurgitate part of a previous reply to Shock of God:
"My favorite among your glue-arguments are "relational view of time" and that you are a "time relationist".
It took a long time for you to even mention that you suddenly have a "relational view of time", which is just a time bending "philosophy" you use to solve your logical problems, specifically at the moment of the creation of the universe. Not even in your "Revisited" article, do you even mention a "relational view of time" at all."
Interesting.
I will reply to Shock of God first, and then to SvanUlf.
The following 1, 2 and 3 are in directly answerable accordance with your following syllogistic gymnastics:
1. Consider (as a possibility)
[from a theoretically pre-this-universe top>down perspective {thus in a prior or contiguous universe}]
that the terminus of a black hole (that terminus being its so-called infinitely-compacted nadir) is what is being referred to in modern astrophysics as that point from which the Big Bang occurred--our universe thus blowing up from out such a point as if a balloon blowing up; and, that,
[now switching to a theoretical bottom>up in-this-universe perspective]
we cannot thus find the bellybutton of this balloon, as it were; for the universe is too large for the naked eye to spot out its originary center point.
And, now, extrapolate this above scenario to every black hole in our universe, whose dense termini explode into other universes, whole other dimensions; the universes like flowerings on some overall dark matter stem branching out from the tree of the grand and overall Nothing which alone supports all that is. To maximize it, I would say, that Only Nothing is large enough to contain Everything.
2. In your second triad you aver that “The fine-tuning of the Universe...is due to neither physical necessity [n]or chance.”
But one cannot assert this knowingly; for the assertion begs the question of knowing exactly how the universe came into being.
Anyway, Instead of “physical necessity,” I myself prefer the term 'pre-established harmony'; thus linking this 2nd point with point 1 above. By this linking I mean that: because our universe (may have) burst forth from the infinite density of a black hole terminus
(and thus not really being infinite in itself, since at a certain density it 'must' then explode into another universe [physical necessity]; nonetheless, to a perceiving mind, it is seemingly infinite simply due the vastness of a universe),
its beginning is actually a continuation of an ongoing flowering of universi; what in media res.
3. Your third syllogachasm does not ‘necessarily’ necessitate the existence of God…., other than as a universal term as required of an interior logical necessity of conceptual imaging; no, your third triad rather enunciates [even shining outside of the walls of its syllogistic prison] the principle necessity of a reflexive reboundary, ‘by which’ reboundary 1) things are things, and 2) ‘thereby which’ things are recognised as being 'things'--which recognition implies a Mind (God), but in no way necessitates one. In the same way it may be understood that the human mind, as a percipient, is not what makes the universe a real space. If all sentient percipients were destroyed, the universe would still exist; unless of course the reason for the sentient percipients being destroyed was the destruction of the universe; a bubble popped...
As for the OP (the original post) by SvanUlf: debate for the sake of debate sharpens the mind.
As for whether the theists believe, I (having formerly been of that tribe of mind; or mindlessness as some might prefer I state, being honest) must say that, Yes they do believe the 'crap', but only hope to one day see it. (That is to say, you cannot believe or only hope to believe something; you believe it, and because of this belief you then hope to see it come to pass one day).
Sorry about your Dad; me my Mom. There are no words for death.
I do not know what “Shock of God” was thinking by his syllogistic cubicleism, but it does not even seem to address your issue. I do not understand why he posted it here. He gives to you an architecture of syllogism so full of holes I cannot understand why he would even post it, unless, perhaps, he is one of those verbal exhibitionists fetishing their own shame.
"1. Consider (as a possibility)
[from a theoretically pre-this-universe top>down perspective {thus in a prior or contiguous universe}]
that the terminus of a black hole (that terminus being its so-called infinitely-compacted nadir) is what is being referred to in modern astrophysics as that point from which the Big Bang occurred--our universe thus blowing up from out such a point as if a balloon blowing up; and, that,
[now switching to a theoretical bottom>up in-this-universe perspective]
we cannot thus find the bellybutton of this balloon, as it were; for the universe is too large for the naked eye to spot out its originary center point.
And, now, extrapolate this above scenario to every black hole in our universe, whose dense termini explode into other universes, whole other dimensions; the universes like flowerings on some overall dark matter stem branching out from the tree of the grand and overall Nothing which alone supports all that is. To maximize it, I would say, that Only Nothing is large enough to contain Everything."
This is pretty much the long-refuted argument that the Universe sprang from a black hole from another universe. This theory, alongside the theory that black holes in our own Universe are doing that same, was proven invalid when Stephen Hawking admitted that information is not lost in a black hole but "...remains firmly in our universe".
"2. In your second triad you aver that “The fine-tuning of the Universe...is due to neither physical necessity [n]or chance.”
But one cannot assert this knowingly; for the assertion begs the question of knowing exactly how the universe came into being."
The fine-tuning argument does not question-beg, because exactly how the Universe came into being is irrelevant to the fact that it was finely-tuned when it did come into being. This fine-tuning cannot be do to physical necessity because the constants of the Universe that are fine-tuned are independent of the laws of nature, meaning that they are not physically necessitated; and chance is not an explanation because the chances of the Universe appearing so finely-tuned by random chance are so infinitesimally small that chance becomes unreasonable as an explanation. This leaves only design as the most plausible explanation.
"Anyway, Instead of “physical necessity,” I myself prefer the term 'pre-established harmony'; thus linking this 2nd point with point 1 above. By this linking I mean that: because our universe (may have) burst forth from the infinite density of a black hole terminus
(and thus not really being infinite in itself, since at a certain density it 'must' then explode into another universe [physical necessity]; nonetheless, to a perceiving mind, it is seemingly infinite simply due the vastness of a universe),
its beginning is actually a continuation of an ongoing flowering of universi; what in media res."
Your theory of black hole universal generation cannot be true, because information is not lost in the singularity of a black hole.
And I don't know how what you said vitiates the moral argument at all, it almost seems to completely ignore it.
"...was proven invalid when Stephen Hawking admitted that information is not lost in a black hole but "...remains firmly in our universe". "
Your powers at misrepresenting other people's theories to suit your needs is amazing. If you had an ounce of integrity you would aknowledge that it is only the information present at the point of crossing the event horizon that remains. You are plenty smart enough to know what that means. Our pocket of space-time could very well be encapsulated entirely within a larger pocket and there could be others encapsulated within ours. I don't subscribe to any such theories posited to this point, but they are at least as viable as your premises.
I find your responses so absurd, I will only reply that you need to find a Philosophy for Dummies, and an Astrophysics for Dummies book; and read them.
You said "information is not lost in the singularity of a black hole". --How do you know?
By the way predicating vitiation of morality is a mixed metaphor to the point of unintelligibility.
If I were you, I would read the succinct smash that Nyarlathotep averred, concerning the powerlessness of your triads.
This was for S o G.
Also for S o G. Your dogmatism makes we both want to vomit, and makes me ashamed to be of the same species as you. Everything you have asserted here as necessary and true are mere assumptions locked up it logical cages.
I was never able to understand how theists never seem to realize just how utterly ridiculous their explanations are...they will go on and on, but what they are telling you amounts to absolutely nothing that makes any scientific, or logical sense. It is a bunch of nonsense that you will lose track of the original discussion, and begin debating things that have no bearing on anything...just grasping at straws, for the sake of having something to say.
For SvanUlf:
I wrote this poem about my mother. I thought it might help to know that others have been through similar circumstances.
The Title of it (Death...$9.00) was the actual header of the receipt when I went to purchase her death certificate.
Death . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.00
rosegarden ashes scattered
hospitably rotting rectangular orgasms of downtown LA
your shaven head grew back in golden wool,
recurrent cancer bit your breast and died:
sweet momma’s soul all baby-soft and cruel
I saw eternal sleep-in there
taking pale to all your cold neck
and life broke every word it ever bare,
while silence staring never lied
and when your breath became the air
made every eye a fool...
1996
For SvanUlf:
I wrote this poem about my mother. I thought it might help to know that others have been through similar circumstances.
The Title of it (Death...$9.00) was the actual header of the receipt when I went to purchase her death certificate.
Death . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.00
rosegarden ashes scattered
hospitably rotting rectangular orgasms of downtown LA
your shaven head grew back in golden wool,
recurrent cancer bit your breast and died:
sweet momma’s soul all baby-soft and cruel
I saw eternal sleep-in there
taking pale to all your cold neck
and life broke every word it ever bare,
while silence staring never lied
and when your breath became the air
made every eye a fool...
1996
Yes, I do believe all that crap :) The thing about philosophical arguments that I do not like is that the definition of words can be quibbled over, and large books have been written on establishing premises that are then casually dismissed out of hand. You all are arguing with Shock of God (I agree with his position, naturally, despite what I'm going to say) over premises and definitions... and this is all muddy water for me.
For me, it comes down to the physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ. If He rose again, the supernatural world exists and so does God. That is why I'm a Christian. No non-supernatural explanation has stuck for the Resurrection, even though there have been at least a dozen attempts.
The Bible has been attacked. Same goes for God and His character. Some of the arguments are very convincing (I won't lie). But it comes down to the Resurrection. People like Sir Lionel Luckhoo (someone you cannot dismiss out of hand as illogical and unreasonable) have investigated it and have found there is only one explanation: Jesus rose again.
I also have a question... why don't atheists devote more time to try to demolish the Resurrection? You realize that if you all come up with a natural theory that explains all the physical facts both Christian and secular scholars agree happened... Christianity is finished. It's that easy. I would abandon Christianity in a heartbeat if someone could naturally and fully explain away the Resurrection.
ilovequestions - " why don't atheists devote more time to try to demolish the Resurrection?"
Well I can only speak for myself: because I don't think it happened?
Okay :) That speaks for you alone and no one else so there's not much I can say! Haha
"I also have a question... why don't atheists devote more time to try to demolish the Resurrection? You realize that if you all come up with a natural theory that explains all the physical facts both Christian and secular scholars agree happened... Christianity is finished. It's that easy. I would abandon Christianity in a heartbeat if someone could naturally and fully explain away the Resurrection."
First, your question is so strange. "why don't atheists devote..." If you were to ask an individual that question it would make far more sense..."why don't You devote..." To ask why atheistS do or don't do something leads me to think you still do not properly understand the word atheist.
Second, do you think that atheistS are collectively and systematically out to finish off christianity? If so, wow.
"The Bible has been attacked."
Did someone set at it with a broadsword? Or did they simply call out what is actually in it?
Lionel Luckhoo....hmmm...appeal to authority, eh?
*Sigh* The difficult thing about forums is that people love to nitpick word choices. I apologize, I am not a phd philosopher who knows how to phrase everything correctly :/
I meant in the realm of apologetical atheists. Those who actively promote their position and try to defeat other positions. Some of you all are in this realm. And no, I don't believe all atheists are out to finish Christianity... but there are many that are.
"Did someone set at it with a broadsword? Or did they simply call out what is actually in it?"
I understand you were trying to be slightly smart with this comment... but actually, the answer is yes. The Bible has been THE most hated book of all time. It's been burned and slashed and outlawed and people have been murdered for owning it... so yes, the Bible has been attacked.
And as for my inclusion of Lionel Luckhoo, I'm not saying my position is RIGHT because he is on my side. That would be an appeal to authority. I am saying that many very intelligent people are on my side, so there's respectability and credibility with my position. I am not saying it is right because of Lionel Luckhoo.
"I am saying that many very intelligent people are on my side, so there's respectability and credibility with my position."
Nope.
Other than that the physical Resurrection was a natural event, which most people on this planet refer to as enlightenment, as witness the older religions: (the resurrection [or upcoming] of deep psychophysical knowledge from the unconscious and subconscious minds into the conscious mind), there is no way to explain it away; the only way to prove it is to personally experience it.
So I don't see how you can expect someone to 'naturally' explain away what you call a 'supernatural event.'
This makes no sense, other than as a physical, here and now, enlightenment.
But you still assert, knowingly, that your belief resides in an IF scenario. So how can you knowledgeably call yourself a Christian when your belief, according to your own words, dangles on an IF?
"Other than that the physical Resurrection was a natural event,"--is meant for I love questions.
(Site wise, These interpolabilities into the middle of a thread really mess things up. There should be a rigid chronology, so that posts follow posts, instead of post #12 referring to post #4 but is put in the position of post #8; it makes the thread confusing.)
"I also have a question... why don't atheists devote more time to try to demolish the Resurrection?"
We don't believe in it, and don't feel we need to. The account of the resurrection only exists in the bible, with no external contemporary sources, much like the dead rising from their graves and wandering around after his execution(Matthew, I believe). Why should I believe either zombie story, or take it seriously enough to bother demolishing? Don't be too offended, though, I also don't spend a lot of time demolishing any stories about Zeus or Odin either. Frankly, bothering to spend a lot of time on Christianity specifically seems a bit of a waste, considering it isn't even the most terrifying belief system we are faced with today.
"You realize that if you all come up with a natural theory that explains all the physical facts both Christian and secular scholars agree happened..."
Except that they don't actually agree, some grant that he existed, few grant that he was actually resurrected.
"Christianity is finished. It's that easy."
I doubt that, even if we found conclusive evidence that it didn't happen, many would believe anyway.
"I would abandon Christianity in a heartbeat if someone could naturally and fully explain away the Resurrection."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121643/
And why would coming back to life mean he was the son of a god? There are three resurrections in the Old Testament alone, and six or seven resurrections in the New Testament(not including the zombiefest in Matthew), obviously it wasn't exactly a rare occurrence according to the same book that said Jesus did it. Given that he was just one of many people to come back from the dead, according to your own holy book, I don't see why that would mark him as special.
Travis - "The account of the resurrection only exists in the bible, with no external contemporary sources"
I know you know this, but I'd like to add:
"no internal contemporary sources either", since Matthew was not written by Matthew, Mark was not written by Mark, Luck was not written by Luke, and John was not written by John.
Oh, I know, but they have a thousand excuses to try and rationalize that bit of information away as if it never existed. I mean, when they can't even be relied upon to give a legitimate account of the origin of their book, it kind of spoils its credibility a bit.
Pages