The Instigator
girg
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points

A Christian God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
KRFournier
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,307 times Debate No: 21354
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

girg

Con

This debate will argure whether the Christian God exists or not.

I, CON will argue that God does not exist.

PRO will argue that God exists.

PRO please accept, and state your arguments.
KRFournier

Pro

I accept the debate. I'll let my opponent go first so that we both have three rounds to debate. This does not mean I am attempting to relinquish burden of proof. It seems apparent that we will both offer our arguments in favor of our respective positions.

Since this debate focuses on the Christian God, I cite the Westminster Confession of Faith's1 thorough summarization of God's complex characteristics:

There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Sources
    1. http://www.reformed.org...
Debate Round No. 1
girg

Con

Thank you PRO for both accepting challenge and defining God.
Main point of argument:
There is no physical trace of God on Earth.
God has never communicated with modern man, either through TV, radio, even the internet.
People commonly use the idea that prayer will cure people, however this is an example of a logical fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc

I will use the argument from this site as my next few points: http://godisimaginary.com...
  1. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
  2. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
  3. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions

Sources: http://godisimaginary.com...

KRFournier

Pro

Rebuttal

Con offers three points of contention that actually do not prove the resolution one way or another. They are all if/then constructs, all of which point to the notion that we would approach the questions differently if we had scientific proof for God. But he does not show that there is no scientific proof. Even if he tried, he would then need to show that scientific proof is the only valid kind of proof for God’s existence, which is strange considering the resolution is metaphysical to begin with.

The website Con cited goes into more detail on this contention, but I have no intention on debating a website. I agreed to debate girg, not godisimaginary.com. If Con wants to expound on his arguments further in his next rounds, I’ll be glad to address them.

Evidential Argument for God's Existence

Here is an evidential argument for God’s existence, which is a modified form of Kalam's Cosmological Argument (KCA). This evidential argument is meant to show that it is more rational to accept Christianity as true than otherwise. Any argument for God's existence can be doubted; I simply ask the readers to determine whether any doubts my opponent may offer are reasonable or irrational.

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

We have yet to acquire conclusive proof of entities entering into existence without cause. The Causal Principle is rooted in our everyday experiences and cannot be conveniently ignored. I warn my opponent that appealing to matter or energy as contrary evidence is question begging.

P2. The universe began to exist.

It is certain the universe is continually expanding from a singularity.1 Alexander Vilenkin developed a unifying theory2 in 2003 with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth. This theory, which is independent of our universe, shows that all expanding universes must have a singularity and therefore a beginning.

An actual infinite number of things is impossible. Therefore, there is a finite number of events in our cosmos' timeline. Thus, it is rational to conclude that it had a first event, or a beginning.

C1. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. (P1 and P2)

P3. The first cause must be eternal.

There are two choices for the cause of this universe: another temporal existence or an eternal one. If it is temporal, it also has a beginning (per C1). Since there cannot be an actual infinite number of temporal universes, we must conclude that eventually, there is an eternal cause.

P4. All eternal causes of temporal effects must be personal.

An eternal cause would be one of two things: teleological (personal/intelligent) or non-teleological (mechanical). An eternal object MUST be in equilibrium; it is logically contradictory to assert an eternal object that is changing. Thus, a mechanical eternal entity is dead and therefore incapable of causing anything, much less the temporal effects of space-time as we know it.

A teleological eternal agent on the other hand implies an agent with a will. It is logically possible for an eternal personal agent to freely choose to create effects in time without necessitating change in its own properties. So, by process of elimination, we can conclude that any eternal cause of a temporal effect must be intelligent.

C2. The universe was caused by a personal creator. (C1, P3 and P4)

P5. Since there is a personal creator, miracles are logically possible.

It is logically permissible for the personal creator to intervene in our universe to cause events that defy the normal constraints of the universe, i.e., miracles. One need not believe in miracles to see that this is logical possibility under the circumstances.

P6. If the Resurrection of Christ occurred, then Christianity is true.

Jesus Christ is the founder of Christianity and claimed to be the Son of God. He claimed to be an ambassador of truth to the people of the world. If he was resurrected from the dead, then his authority on the matter is confirmed and Christianity is true. If he did not raise from the dead, then Christianity is not true.

P7. The miracle of the Resurrection of Christ probably occurred.

Given the historical reliability of the Bible3, we can conclude that the stories regarding Jesus Christ are testimonies of real witnesses. Given the logical possibility of miracles (P5) and the testimony of so many witnesses, it is parsimonious to accept that the Gospel accounts are probably describing a real event.

C3. The personal creator of this universe is probably the Christian God. (C1, C2, P5, P6, and P7)

Conclusion

So far, Con has offered no substantiated argument. He’s simply painted an imaginary picture of a world in which we have scientific proof of God, but he doesn’t do anything else with it. He cites a website, but I think the voters will agree that I should not be held accountable to refute a website. If I were, then we could just both post links all day and the one with the most would be declared the winner.

On the other hand, I’ve provided a detailed argument for God’s existence.

I will now hand the debate back over to my opponent for his cross examination.

Sources

  1. http://skyserver.sdss.org...
  2. http://books.google.com...
  3. http://www.leaderu.com...
Debate Round No. 2
girg

Con

Although I do appreciate PROS arguments, I agreed to debate KRfournier, Not Kalam

PRO does not prove God, he simply states facts of the universe without proving God had a part in it.

Con also has failed to rebuttal against any of my arguments, he claims he should not have to debate against a website, so I may fairly claim that I should not have to argue against an ancient Islamic philosophy.
KRFournier

Pro

My opponent does not seem interested in actual debate. He hopes he can win by pasting website links in lieu of any exposition on his part. I, on the other hand, laid out my argument in full. Sure, it's based on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but it's my words. So, my opponent is wrong when he says he is debating Kalam. His is in fact debating me, for they are my words.

Since my opponent doesn't find it necessary to respond to my arguments, I extend them as is. I also extend my rebuttals to his arguments.

When my opponent is ready to debate, I'll be happy to oblige.
Debate Round No. 3
girg

Con

My opponent still fails to produce arguments directly showing that a God exists, and even if my arguments are based off of someone else's, just like his, he still fails to refute them.
I believe I have won this debate due to the original failure of refuting any of my original points.
KRFournier

Pro

The facts of this debate are simple:
  • Pro did not offer an argument, only a link.
  • I did offer an argument and fully supported every premise.
  • My opponent says he refuted my argument, when in fact, he didn't offer any rebuttal whatsoever.
Given the facts, I think the voters are justified in giving me both Most Convincing Argument as well as Conduct.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Alarbi 5 years ago
Alarbi
This debate is about "A Christian God", and KRFournier cited 3 paragraphs from Westminster Confession of Faith's. He does not seem to see that the last paragraph is not compatible with the rest as it introduces a human component:

In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. etc...

The above definition is not from Jesus or Judaism; it stems from PAGAN BELIEF and was introduced in the First Council of Nicaea, a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. The council affirmed and defined (dogma) what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father and the Spirit ! This does not stem from GOD or any Holly Book, It is an adaptation of the old pagan beliefs:

1.Aristotle's spiritual trinity: Beginning-Middle-End
2.Plato's "Mystery religion" as stated in his ‘Symposium'
3.Martial named Hermes "Trismegistos" The three times great Hermes
4.The Dionysus religion also had a trinity: Zagreus-Aristophanes-Dionysus
5.The Romans also had a trinity: Jupiter-Juno-Minerva

This trinity theory was already put forwards in the 4th. Century BC by Xenocrates (1) and the Early Church tried to match its belief by integrating those thoughts which evolved from Gnosticism. This puts you in the VERY BIG trouble that the Christian God is simply historical, a historical idea and has nothing to do with the real eternal GOD, therefore you massacred yourself in this debate and even if I believe in the eternal GOD without the third paragraph, I have to stay fair, you lost this debate intellectually and spiritually because Jesus said in Mathew.
"None of those who call me ‘Lord' will enter the kingdom of God, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)
Posted by jawyer 5 years ago
jawyer
Pro has infact told a complete lie and has failed to debate properly . Pro has not given relevant points and he argued with Con's very true and good points but Pro did not prove his rebuts.

vote for con as he had value to the debate unlike pro
Posted by Iamthejuan 5 years ago
Iamthejuan
and why did pro specify the Christian God but then go on to debate the simple existence of God. This is why you lost; you gave up your home-field advantage.
Posted by Iamthejuan 5 years ago
Iamthejuan
Why would one accept such a loaded and pointless debate. There is no way to prove that the Christian God is God, and this is coming from someone who believes in the Christian God.
Posted by jawyer 5 years ago
jawyer
i agree with CON,

good luck PRO
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
girgKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually tried while Con made this debate meaningless.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
girgKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con didn't make an argument nor provide a rebuttal.
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
girgKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is a troll, Pro's case went untouched, no arguments were refuted,clean extensions by pro, thus you must affirm (unless your a troll) Sources and Grammar as well as conduct go to pro (Better sources, clear Spelling, Easily better conduct)
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
girgKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This one was pretty obvious, especially since Con gave up. He tried to use a website rather than his own words to debate and as Pro pointed out, those arguments don't even support or deny the contention.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
girgKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's didn't even make a relatively cohesive argument.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
girgKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con tried to evade the character limits by incorporating a website into his debate post rather than writing his own argument. When this didn't work, he got sulky and effectively forfeited the rest of the debate rather than try to make his own argument or respond to Con's. Conduct and persuasion to Pro.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
girgKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro refuted Con's case, presented side of his own wording. Con refused to touch it. Obvious win is obvious?