My debate on the Existence of God?

[alwaysquestion]

I'm a Christian Theist and would like to know some recommendations on what arguments to use. The arguments I plan to use are

1.Kalam Cosmological
2.Teleological
3.Axiological
4.From Evil
5.From Consciousness
6.Plantinga's Ontological(Might be too complicated)
7.Radical claims and uniqueness of Christ
8.Biblical reliability
9.The argument from miracles featuring the resurrection
10.From Experience

The debate format is as follows-
45 minute opening statement
35 minute rebuttal
25 minute rebuttal of the rebuttal
10 minute closing statement

Do you think I'm presenting too many arguments? Don't try to debate me now! I have a degree in psychology, Philosophy, and New Testament studies. If you want to debate email me! My biggest concerns are using the ontological(It tends to be confusing and takes a long period of time to explain) and the uniqueness of Christ(This is a very good way to set the stage for my last arguments, but it tends to take a long time).Also I will most likely not inclu8de the statments on Biblical reliability just for the sake of time. Also because Biblical reliability does not need to be established for the uniqueness argument and the resurrection argument. Eliminating this though, means I shouldn't Which arguments do you recommend?


P.S. The above arguments are the only special revelation and natural theological arguments I accept.(I didn't include arguments specifically aimed at poly/pantheism though. Nor arguments against unitarian conceptions of God such as the Islamic and Jewish conceptions of God, again for the sake of time.)
Wow I already see an Ad Hominem. Oh well! Byu the way...I am not arguing here!!!!!I'm merely asking your opinion on arguments I should and should not use.
More Ad Hominems. I'm really saddaned by the rediculous comments of "New Atheists". Bare Assertions are everywhere!
Hello RickK! You bring up some interesting but demonstrably fallacious arguments to the table. You have answered irrelevantly to my question though. If you'd like to debate, I'd prefer email. Thank you.
Hola aaronmsl! Thank you for you feed back! I think We have a best answer. My main focus is to prove
1.The being that Copplestone and Russell agreed on before their famous debate
2.This being had decisively revealed himself through Jesus of Nazareth.

As for the Argument From evil-This argument is related to the problem of evil but is independent of it.I recommend reading the "Blackwell companion to natural theology" for more information.Also J.P. Moreland wrote some wonderful works on arguments such as these.
Thank you for the advice on the ontological.I might reconsider.
As for the cosmological and teleological-My point is to build a cumulative case for the existence of God.Those two set the stage for the ontological and others. It proves there is an immaterial, spaceless,timeless,changeless, personal being who brought the universe into existence and designed it with an intent for life. I simply disagree that these arguments are fallacious.

THANK YOU!
The uniqueness argument is to put my other arguments into perspective and to show what a decisive figure Jesus is. As well this argument will parry the whole Mythra, osirus, Dionysus, ect argument. This is also is used to show the philosophical competency exhibited by Jesus and the failure of all other religions to do so. Thank you for your advice.
I am extraordinary confident with the argument from miracles. It's a hard argument to convince people of because of assumptions and preconceived bias. The argument from consciousness was very well defended in J.P's work and I am very confident in that argument as well. I also have studied biblical reliability and have debated on this subject alone several times. 60% of my life’s work has been given to the study of the resurrection and biblical reliability. I am confident in these as well. Although, to make my case for the resurrection I do not need to presuppose biblical reliability. In fact, I can suppose the New Testament as generally unreliable.

 

[aaronmsl]

I see a number of problems with your structure, but it depends on the debate. If the debate is the existence of the Christian God, you are potentially wasting your time with cosmological and teleological arguments, since neither can be used to demonstrate a specific deity.

If your plan, which it appears to be, is to use those arguments to demonstrate the existence of any god, and then move on to that god of necessity being the Christian one, then I think you just spend more time on your specific arguments for the Christian God. Neither the cosmological argument nor teleological is definitive, both (but especially teleology) contain substantive and obvious formal and informal fallacies and if you're debating with anyone sensible, they'll tear you apart for using them.

I can't see how you can argue FOR a god by arguing from evil. I suggest you might let your opponent make their case first, and then respond in your rebuttal. I'm not big on argument from consciousness, and again, any sane opponent will shred your arguments from miracles, experience and biblical reliability. You can present them, but be careful.

I'd spend more time on ontology - it can be specific to one deity, if presented properly it is quite hard to breakdown, and if you go deeply enough into it, an opponent prepared mainly for the ease of a victory against cosmological and teleological arguments might struggle to defeat it. It's not infallible either - hasn't been for hundreds of years - but it's better than any of your other options.

Good luck... you'll need it.


Edit... I'm sorry, I missed this the first time through. I would strongly suggest you avoid any argument based on uniqueness. Uniqueness demonstrates nothing, and can be used against you in 2 ways that not only destroy that particular argument, but actually the entire structure of your debate.

Were I your opponent and you presented an argument on uniqueness, I would smile very happily to myself - even more so than if you presented teleology or cosmology.


Edit... You're welcome. I can't quite see how you could formulate either the tel. or cos. arguments without logical fallacies, but feel free to give it a try. I don't actually think they're necessary - ontology is complete within itself - but it's your debate.

Again, I don't see why you would have any confidence in an argument from miracles. I obviously don't know what your argument is, but I doubt its nearly as definitive as you seem to think.

If I were discussing uniqueness with you, personally I'd ignore Mithra and the rest, and start with Orphism, Pythagoras and Heraclitus. The ideas present in Christianity are almost wholly derived from Greek/Egyptian/Thracian (since they're through Bacchus) theology and philosophy, but I wish you well with it. I guess it just depends what your opponents background is.

 

[Bob B]

The Ontological argument is a bad idea- this is one of the easier ones to attack.

 

[The Great Gazoo]

It might be nice if you actually put some evidence in there somewhere.

 

[Jared]

Oh, you'd make a really fun person to debate. Geez, I wish more Christians of your variety would IM me.

 

[the truth]

Degree on New Testament studies, hilarious.

Edit: You do think you're smart because you use words like "Ad hominem", don't you?

 

[pappy12a]

Unless you're debating with an idiot you're dead in the water before you even start