The Instigator
darthebearnc
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Are any of the Abrahamic religions true?

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 1 vote the winner is...
darthebearnc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,350 times Debate No: 67502
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

darthebearnc

Con

First round is for acceptance only. I will argue that none of the three main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) are true. You will be arguing that one of them is true (you can choose which one). Good luck! :D
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Well, I guess I technically lost this debate alreedy since I agree with my opponent that all religions only relgions. A religion is something a person practices as a means of trying to gain assurance that they will not have to exist in the fire of Hell.

I cannot say I support any religion. I know a person, Jesus Christ, who is God. He is the truth, He is not a religion. You are you, Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ and he is God incarnate who came down from heaven and died in your place so that you don't have to suffer eternal death in Hell. God loves you and is giving you time as He calls you, pleading with you to be saved from Hell.

Not much of an argument, really, Jesus Christ is the truth. You can argue against the truth, but that won't get you out of death. You can believe the truth and be saved from the eternal death in Hell which you deserve for your sins.
This is reality, not relgion. Knowing God through Jesus Christ is knowing God personally, not trying to find God or attain righteousness by being religious.

The fatih of Abraham was not religion. Abraham knew, trusted, and obeyed God......though at times he did act like He forgot or did not believe God's promises.

Religious people are like atheists. They believe they have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell.
Debate Round No. 1
darthebearnc

Con

First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and wish him or her the best of luck in this debate. It seems that I had forgotten a few things in the introduction to the debate (definitions, Burden of Proof, etc.), so I'll clear that up now. I suppose that the Burden of Proof will be shared, as my opponent will be providing evidence for the religion of his or her choice and I will be providing evidence against. Essentially, whoever has the best argument wins the debate. Furthermore, as my opponent seems to have chosen the religion of Christianity, I assume that the definition of Christianity we'll be using for this debate is basically the set of beliefs and customs practiced by those who worship the trinitarian God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of the Christian religion.

Unfortunately, my opponent has disregarded the 'first round is for acceptance only' policy, though I'm okay with that. My first argument will basically compile some evidence against the God of Christianity, who I'm assuming my opponent supports based off of his or her slightly confusing opening argument ("Well, I guess I technically lost this debate alreedy since I agree with my opponent that all religions only relgions"). With that, I'd like to thank my opponent one more time for accepting this challenge, and wish him or her good luck. Let the debate begin! :D

For my first round of arguments, considering the short character limit, I'll only be discussing discrepancies between the Bible and scientific evidence. As commonly asserted by those opposing the Christian faith, the Bible is full of fallacies and errors that are strongly unsupported by the scientific community. Here are a few examples:

1. Age of the Earth - The Biblical interpretation of the age of the Earth is one of the most controversial and highly scrutinized aspects of the Christian religion. According to the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, God created everything in the universe (heaven, earth, light, water, sky, land, plants, animals, people, etc.) himself in a process known today by Christian adherents as the 'Creation'. Most modern biblical scholars attribute this period of 'Creation' to be around 6,000 years old, with God having created the universe and all of its contents in six 24-hour periods. This account, widely interpreted as true by those who follow Christianity, has the following flaws:

a. All modern, valid, and tested scientific evidence regarding the matter attests the age of the universe at at least 13.8 billion years. This approximate age has been calculated by the scientific community using two methods - studying the oldest known objects in the universe and and measuring the universe's range of expansion. First, scientists research the age of the oldest discovered celestial bodies. Currently, these bodies are found in globular clusters, or dense collections of stars. The age of the stars in these globular clusters is determined through mass - scientists have developed a scale that relates the mass of a star to its life cycle and age. Through this data, scientists have determined that the oldest stars in globular clusters are between 11 and 18 billion years old - as the universe cannot be younger than the objects within it, this shows that the universe is at least 11 billion years old. The second method that scientists use to determine the universe's age is its rate of expansion. Scientists have calculated the universe's expansion rate by observing the rate at which celestial bodies move away from each other - this rate is known as the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant tells us that celestial objects have been moving away from each other for about 13.82 billion years - due to this estimate, as well as the evidence that the universe's expansion is slowing, scientists have theorized that 13.82 billion years ago, a single point known as the 'Big Bang' suddenly started expanding into the universe and has been doing so ever since. Obviously, as scientific evidence has shown, the universe is older than the 6,000 year Biblical estimate - to say that the Biblical age of the universe is valid is similar to saying that the distance from New York City to San Francisco is 7.8 years. More evidence for the age of the universe can be found at tinyurl.com/q3axkud .

b. Scientific evidence has shown that no known current living species on Earth was created in its current stage. Fossil evidence and records have constantly shown that the species currently on Earth have evolved from ancestors, with the process of natural selection guiding which members of a species survive and reproduce the most effectively - helpful genetic mutations aid an organism's survival and cause it to be more successful in reproduction (with enough genetic mutations, the process of natural selection will eventually lead the more advanced part of a species to overpower its counterparts through reproduction and become a separate species of its own). This theory of evolution, constantly proven valid through scientific research and observation (fossil record, genetic mutation, etc.), proves the Creationism of the Bible as scientifically invalid. More information on this topic can be found at tinyurl.com/ajvvz5 .

c. Radiometric dating, a scientific process in which objects are dated based off of the amount of radioactive material they contain, clearly shows that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old. The process of radiometric dating is based on the fact that a radioactive isotope changes from one element to another at a fixed rate. Each of these isotopes has its own rate of change, measured in half-lives. Through radiometric dating, scientists can measure the half-lives of radioactive isotopes contained in an object, thereby determining the age of the object itself. For examples of radiometric dating and more information, go to tinyurl.com/qxptqza .

2. Noah's Ark - The story of Noah's Ark, found in Genesis Chapters 6-9, is another aspect of the Bible often scrutinized by those with scientific evidence. Due to the low character limit, I can only give a short summary of problems with the story, though can provide a link with full information on the floods impracticality at tinyurl.com/44sku (this is also my source for this argument). Flaws within the story of Noah's Ark include:

a. As within many other Biblical stories, the age of those described within the story of Noah's Ark is incredible. According to Genesis 7:6, Noah was six hundred years old when building his supposed ark. This age (similarly to Adam's 930 year lifespan) is scientifically impossible, according to all modern evidence and research. According to most modern biblical scholars, the story of Noah's Ark occurred at around 2370 BC. This would make Noah's birth date at approximately 2970 BC. According to most modern scientific research, human life expectancy at this time was around 33 years. This life expectancy rate, along with many other scientific estimates of human longevity in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods, makes Noah's age as reported in the Bible essentially impossible. For more information on this topic, go to tinyurl.com/2u3xhs .

b. Problems with the ship and animals described in the story of Noah's Ark include:
-The Genesis account, accompanied with modern measurement conversions, provides the size of the ark at 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. A ship of this size would NEVER be able to hold two of every single animal species on Earth (this includes all modern species as well as those extinct). To say that the ship would be able to hold all extinct animal species as well as the 1,263,186 animal species currently estimated to be on Earth would be absurd.
-A wooden ship of the size described in the book of Genesis would be virtually unable to hold together or sail. The longest modern ships are 300 feet long and require iron strap reinforcement and constant pumping due to constant leaking - it would be nearly impossible for a 450 feet ship at a time without our modern-day technology to float.
-There is virtually no way that all animal species could have gotten to the ark in the seven day period allotted to Noah in Genesis 7:4-10. If the animal species were scattered around the world at the time before the flood, they would not have been able to all reach the same point withing a seven day period. Non-swimming and non-flying animals on islands would not have been able to reach Noah, and some animals with difficulty traveling would be unable to cross the terrains, bodies of water, and obstacles necessary to reach Noah within a seven day period. Furthermore, if my opponent argues that the animals all lived near Noah at the time of the flood, they surely would have killed off one another within a short period of time due to competition for food, water, and habitat.

c. There is virtually no evidence that a worldwide flood occurred anywhere in the last 6,000 years. Scientists would surely have been able to discover evidence of the flood by now through fossil evidence, carbon dating, and flood-suggesting land forms, though nobody in the scientific community is able to do so. Obviously, this shows that the probability of a world-wide flood occurring in the past few thousands of years is astronomically low, and to assert that such a flood did happen would be without virtue.

Before ending my argument, I would like to clarify two things:

1. If my opponent attributes the extraordinary happenings in the Bible to a supernatural power, he/she must also provide evidence for a supernatural power's existence.
2. If my opponent states that only some portions of the Bible are literally true, he/she must also provide reasons that certain parts of the Bible are true and other's aren't (as well as why the parts he/she selects as true are true in comparison to the other parts).

I am running very low on characters and must now say goodbye. I thank my opponent and wish him/her good luck! :D
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

For this round, I guess my opponent is changing the topic of the debate from "Are any of the Abrahamic religions true" to
"is every fact in the Bible true"

Well, I'm sorry my opponent believes God does not love him.
Debate Round No. 2
darthebearnc

Con

I'm quite afraid that I don't know what you're talking about. The subject of this debate is clearly "Are any of the Abrahamic religions true?" In Round 1, you stated clearly that you believe Jesus Christ is God, making me assume that you are of the Christian faith (this assumption is further shown to be accurate on your profile, which says you are a Baptist). One of the main tenets of Christianity (which you are clearly affiliated with) is the belief that the Bible is truth. Therefore, I spent my first argument showing evidence that many parts of the Bible are not true. At the end of the argument, I recognized that you may not believe that the Bible is literally true, and asked that you provide reasons for why some parts of the Bible are literally valid and others aren't. Unfortunately, you failed to do so in your argument, instead criticizing me for supposedly changing the topic of the debate - I did not do this. Instead, I made the evidence-based assumption that you were a Christian and based my argument off of providing evidence against a clearly Christianity-related doctrine, the Book of Genesis. If you would like to rebut my arguments against Genesis, clarify that you do not believe that the Bible is literally true, or continue this debate in any other reasonable manner, I encourage you to do so. I have decided to not continue my argument against Christianity in this Round in order to give you the convenience of an equal playing field if you decide to continue the debate in a reasonable way. Please do so, and thank you.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

The Bible is God's love letter to mankind. If you don't believe it, you don't believe God loves you. God made a covenant with Abraham, it's called the Old Covenant, or the Old Testament. It's God's testimony of what He will do for you the same as it is His testimony, His Covenant, with Abraham. God cannot lie. He made promises to Abraham, and you are trying to call God a liar. You do not believe God loves you and that is not His fault. You just want to have an excuse for enjoying things you do which violate God's law.

I already agreed with you that Abrahamic religions are untrue. All religions promote a false hope of attaining the divine through one's own efforts. That was not the faith of Abraham. Abraham believed God's promises, and Abraham believed God loved him. I'm sorry you do not believe God loves you. Maybe you should try to get a Muslim to argue this debate with you the next time. I know God cannot lie. You can lie. Scientists can twist things and say they have proof of things they have not proved.

I'm sorry you believe God does not love you. God loves you. Why does that bother you?
Debate Round No. 3
darthebearnc

Con

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for posting a coherent argument this round, and wish him the best of luck in the rest of this debate. Thanks! :D

1. Rebuttals
My opponent's argument is essentially a broad collection of absurd and incredible claims for which he does not provide the smallest shred of logical or falsifiable evidence. My opponent begins by attesting that 'the Bible is God's love letter to mankind' and that 'God made a covenant with Abraham, it's called the Old Covenant,' though fails to provide any reasonable evidence in support of his claims. He then asserts that I 'don't believe God loves' me and that I am 'trying to call God a liar' - these ad hominem attacks do not support my opponent's argument in any way or form, regardless of whether they are true (in fact, my opponent is correct in saying I don't believe that God loves me... I do not require the love of a magical sky man who supports the killing of babies [Psalm 137:9], promotes the selling of daughters as slaves [Exodus 21:7], and encourages the taking of young virgin girls as property for rape [Numbers 31:17-18]). Toward the end of my opponent's argument, he supposedly agrees with me that 'Abrahamic religions are untrue' - if you do not support any Abrahamic religions, why are you arguing with me in the first place? My opponent has essentially already offered a concession, though I, in an attempt to give my opponent another chance to win, will willingly slightly shift the topic of this debate to simply whether Jesus is the Christ and God's Bible is the truth. With that, I end my counter-rebuttals, and assert that my opponent has failed to provide any reasonable or rational evidence of his claims, instead only providing a variety of baseless assertions without the slightest bit of logic behind them.

2. Argument A: Biblical Contradictions
As my opponent has now provided a coherent (nonetheless absurd) argument, I feel able to continue in fighting for my contention that Christianity (or at least my opponent's belief in Jesus and the Bible) is untrue. I will now offer ten contradictions found throughout the Bible that show how deeply the document fails in credibility.
- Joseph's father is both Jacob and Heli (MAT 1:16 and LUK 3:23).
- The Son (Jesus) is both equal to and lesser than the Father (God) (JOH 10:30 and JOH 14:28).
- The righteous both live and perish (PSA 92:12 and ISA 57:1).
- Jesus's first sermon was on a mountain and in a plain (MAT 5:1 and LUK 6:17).
- Judas died both through self-inflicted hanging and through explosion/bowel-gushing (MAT 27:5 and ACT 1:18).
- Michal had both zero and five sons (2SA 6:23 and 2SA 21:8).
- Baasha died both in the 26th and 36th years of the reign of Asa (1KI 16:6-8 and 2CH 16:1)
- Jesus wore a scarlet robe and a purple robe at his trial (MAT 27:28 and JOH 19:2).
- Jesus had three different sets of last words (MAT 27:46,50 and LUK 23:46 and JOH 19:30).
- There were three years and seven years of famine (II SAMUEL 24:13 and I CHRONICLES 21:11).

3. Argument B: Contradictions between Jesus Christ and Science
I will now provide a variety of contradictions that show how science refutes the possibility of Jesus as the Messiah.
- In John 11, Jesus supposedly raises a man named Lazarus from the dead. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that any human being can be raised from the dead.
- In Matthew 14:25, Jesus supposedly walks on water. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that any human being can walk water.
- In John 9, Jesus supposedly heals a man who had been blind since birth. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that a human with the technology and medicinal knowledge of 2,000 years ago could have instantly cured a blind man.
- In Matthew 8, Jesus supposedly heals a man with leprosy. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that a human with the technology and medicinal knowledge of 2,000 years ago could have instantly cured a man with leprosy.
- In Luke 7:11-18, Jesus supposedly raises a widow's son from the dead. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that a human being can be raised from the dead.
- In Matthew 12:22, Jesus supposedly heals a man who had been possessed by demons. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that 'demons' exist or can possess people.
- In Luke 24:5-6, Jesus rises from the dead. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that anybody can willingly give themselves life after death.

All of the above 'miracles', attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in various Biblical texts, are widely thought of as to have been true by those who believe Jesus is the messiah. However, there is no logical, reasonable, or falsifiable evidence whatsoever that any of the above actions could have occurred, especially with the medicinal technology of the time. My opponent, however, is likely to argue that Jesus was able to do those things because he, as the messiah, had supernatural/messianic powers. If Pro uses this argument, he must also provide reasonable, logical evidence that Jesus did have supernatural/messianic powers, and must justify how these powers could logically exist. Using the actions above to justify Jesus's supernatural abilities would completely be using circular reasoning (you can't say that Jesus did the above things because he was supernatural/messianic and was supernatural/messianic because he did the above things). If you use the existence of God as justification for Jesus's powers, you must also provide evidence for God's existence.

With that, I end my relatively short argument, and wish Pro the best of luck in the final two rounds of this debate once more.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Why do you keep going on and on? I already agreed with you more than once that all relgions are false. Abraham knew God. Knowing God is not religion, it's a relationship.

You are not looking at Jesus Christ or God. It's like you are wearing a sun visor blocking out the light so you can't see Jesus Christ because you really do not want to turn against the pleasure of your sin. You can name your own sin, I don't know you well enough to do that, but I sure can see you are proud and think that you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell.
Pride is the essence, the basis, of all sin. "I'll do it my way, when I want to, how I want to, and for my own reasons; God's not going to tell me what I should or should not do". I wonder how many times you talked to you parents that way, and I wonder what they did when you put on that air with them. I know what happens to my children if they talk to me that way.
What do you think will happen to you?

You are arguing against religion because you don't want to be religious. That's good. God wants you to know Him personally, as Father to son, adopted by Jesus Christ and the price for your adoption into the family of God paid by His own blood which He gave to buy you back from Hell which pulls you down through the strength of sin which holds you in death.

This is not religion, this is reality. Jesus Christ is God the Creator who came down from Heaven in human form to save you from Hell. You can know God personally by receiving His Son, Jesus, as your Saviour. He is God and He is able to come in to your heart and give you a new heart with eternal life.

It is not me who needs to provide evidence of God. You have all the evidence of God if you look in a mirror. If you look in a mirror, you are looking at the person God Created, and He knows you inside and out, He knows you so well that the hairs of your head are numbered. I am not the one who has the burden of proof to make you believe God loves you. You are carrying the burden of trying to prove God is not there and therefore cannot love you. That's a very heavy burden, and it is the reason you spend so much time parroting people who hate God and deny He is God as if they have proof that He is not there and He does not love you. Why in the world does anybody want to beleive God cannot love them? God loves you just as you are or He would not allow you to breathe His air any longer. If you believe God, like Abraham did, He will give you eternal life and satisfy your soul. You can never satisfy yourself, that is why you keep going on and on and on trying to justify yourself. It is not possible for you as a sinner against God to be justified except by the everlasting fire of Hell's torments which justifes the existence of sinners who can never be justifed to exist outside of it's prison.

Jesus promises that if you will continue in His Word, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. Jesus Christ is the truth. He is not religion, and He's knocking at your door. You need to stop pretending it is not possible for you to be saved from Hell and have eternal lfe. Open the door to Him and He iwll come in to you and He will be your life and your life will be eternal. Why not?

Think, man. You did not have the choice to exist. You cannot un-exist any more than you made yourself exist. You are hoping in death to be free, but it is not possible. To hope that God is not there when your death is finalized is a false hope which will only take you forever away from your Creator and He will not let you go free as a lawbreaker. Life is eternal, or death is eternal, and you will have eternal death in Hell if you will not receive God's offer of eternal life through the blood of His Son which He gave to cover your crimes agaisnt Him so He can and will forgive you if you believe Him and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour.
Debate Round No. 4
darthebearnc

Con

As I have already provided two cohesive, understandable, and in-depth arguments (both of which are yet to be refuted), I will spend this round rebutting the unsupported and slightly illogical claims that my opponent made in his previous argument.

"Why do you keep going on and on? I already agreed with you more than once that all relgions are false. Abraham knew God. Knowing God is not religion, it's a relationship."

I only keep 'going on and on' because you have not yet forfeited and I assume that you would like to finish this debate. Why did you even accept this debate if you already agree with me that 'all religions are false'? I could only have assumed that you believe in the Christian faith, as you make numerous references to Jesus Christ and God. It is on these grounds that I continue my argument - even though you apparently want to forfeit due to your admission that no religions are true, I have to assume that you want to continue this debate because you have not yet actually forfeited.

"You are not looking at Jesus Christ or God. It's like you are wearing a sun visor blocking out the light so you can't see Jesus Christ because you really do not want to turn against the pleasure of your sin. You can name your own sin, I don't know you well enough to do that, but I sure can see you are proud and think that you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell.
Pride is the essence, the basis, of all sin. "I'll do it my way, when I want to, how I want to, and for my own reasons; God's not going to tell me what I should or should not do". I wonder how many times you talked to you parents that way, and I wonder what they did when you put on that air with them. I know what happens to my children if they talk to me that way.What do you think will happen to you?"

I suppose you are correct in saying that I'm 'not looking at Jesus Christ or God', as I do not believe that either of the above exist. I don't believe in God and Jesus Christ not because I want to sin, but because there is no reliable, logical, observable, reasonable, scientific, or falsifiable evidence for God or Christ's existence. If I was presented with this evidence, I would quickly accept the Christian faith - however I am yet to find such evidence. I suppose that I do sin on a Biblical standard, though there is no evidence whatsoever that the absurd moral standards in the Bible are true. Because of this, I refuse to accept God, Christ, or the Bible as true, and plan on continuing to do so unless I am presented with reasonable evidence that tells me otherwise. It also seems that you have failed to provide evidence that "pride is the essence, the basis, of all sin", so I will refuse to believe this theory as well.

"You are arguing against religion because you don't want to be religious. That's good. God wants you to know Him personally, as Father to son, adopted by Jesus Christ and the price for your adoption into the family of God paid by His own blood which He gave to buy you back from Hell which pulls you down through the strength of sin which holds you in death."

I am arguing against religion not because I don't want to be religious, but because there is no evidence that religion is true. Furthermore, I see no evidence that God exists, nor that he wants me to know him or that he wants me to know how Jesus apparently died to buy me 'back from Hell'.

"This is not religion, this is reality. Jesus Christ is God the Creator who came down from Heaven in human form to save you from Hell. You can know God personally by receiving His Son, Jesus, as your Saviour. He is God and He is able to come in to your heart and give you a new heart with eternal life."

Please provide evidence for this claim. If you succeed in doing so, I will gladly conform to your beliefs.

"It is not me who needs to provide evidence of God. You have all the evidence of God if you look in a mirror. If you look in a mirror, you are looking at the person God Created, and He knows you inside and out, He knows you so well that the hairs of your head are numbered. I am not the one who has the burden of proof to make you believe God loves you. You are carrying the burden of trying to prove God is not there and therefore cannot love you. That's a very heavy burden, and it is the reason you spend so much time parroting people who hate God and deny He is God as if they have proof that He is not there and He does not love you. Why in the world does anybody want to beleive God cannot love them? God loves you just as you are or He would not allow you to breathe His air any longer. If you believe God, like Abraham did, He will give you eternal life and satisfy your soul. You can never satisfy yourself, that is why you keep going on and on and on trying to justify yourself. It is not possible for you as a sinner against God to be justified except by the everlasting fire of Hell's torments which justifes the existence of sinners who can never be justifed to exist outside of it's prison."

It is you (or any of your fellow Christ-fearers) who needs to provide me with evidence of God, as I don't have all (or any) of the evidence for God when I 'look in a mirror'. I am unaware of any proof that God created me or that he knows me 'inside and out'. Furthermore, I don't think I have the burden of proof, as I, as an atheist, simply just don't have to believe in something. The default position is atheism, as it takes effort to believe in God and religion as truth. I'm pretty sure that my opponent would have the burden of proof, as he must make a positive claim (God/Christianity is true), while I must only show how the claim isn't true. I also don't know why I should be condemned to 'the everlasting fire of Hell's torments which justices the existence of sinners' - there's no evidence that Hell exists nor that I should go there.

"Jesus promises that if you will continue in His Word, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. Jesus Christ is the truth. He is not religion, and He's knocking at your door. You need to stop pretending it is not possible for you to be saved from Hell and have eternal lfe. Open the door to Him and He iwll come in to you and He will be your life and your life will be eternal. Why not?"

I see no reason to believe that Jesus Christ is truth or that he's knocking at my door. I don't have to pretend that God, Jesus Christ, Heaven, or Hell exist, as I only have to assume so due to the complete and blatant lack of evidence for their existence. I don't know what 'door' you want me to open, though I am fairly sure that there won't be evidence for God or Christ behind such a 'door', at least if the door is in reality.

"Think, man. You did not have the choice to exist. You cannot un-exist any more than you made yourself exist. You are hoping in death to be free, but it is not possible. To hope that God is not there when your death is finalized is a false hope which will only take you forever away from your Creator and He will not let you go free as a lawbreaker. Life is eternal, or death is eternal, and you will have eternal death in Hell if you will not receive God's offer of eternal life through the blood of His Son which He gave to cover your crimes agaisnt Him so He can and will forgive you if you believe Him and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour."

You are correct - I don't have the choice to exist. However, there is no evidence or proof that I'll be in Hell when I die - why should I believe such a thing if there is no evidence to tell me that such a belief is true? My opponent also fails to give evidence that 'life is eternal, or death is eternal' - please give me the astronomical coordinates for Heaven and Hell if you want me to believe that they are true. I don't see how God could have given me his 'son' to cover my 'crimes' against him, nor do I plan to believe so unless I am provided with reasonable evidence, at the least.

Overall, I believe that I have easily refuted each of my opponent's claims, as he asserts them without any reasonable or logical evidence whatsoever. Unless my opponent can provide valid evidence that God exists and rebut each of my logical arguments, I think this debate is essentially over.

To the voters - please consider which of the debaters has provided a lot of reasonable evidence for their side and has successfully refuted each of their opponent's arguments. It should be obvious which one this is.

Once more, I thank my opponent and all the voters out there, and hope that everybody has a great 2015. Thanks! :D
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

You cannot prove that you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell. You can prove that you now have the priviledge of existing outside of the fire of Hell because it is scientifically verifiable due to the fact that you are not burning in Hell. Proving you are priviledged to exist outside of the fire of Hell as long as you are not there is as far as you can get proving anything about Hell. The proof you are demanding is coming. It's better to believe it before the proof is forced upon you and you will no longer be able to believe God loves you. God loves you. That's why He took your death as the Son of God, the gift of the Father, the payment for your sins so God can be just to forgive you if you will believe He died in your place for your sins and rose from the dead to give you eternal life if you will ask God in Jesus' name to save you from Hell.

I cannot prove God loves you. You can know God loves you now if you will believe He loves you. You will never know God loves you if you won't beleive He loves you. If you force God to let you have the proof of Hell which you are now denying, you will never again be able to believe He loves you when he lets you have what you are mistakingly asking for.

Life Means God is Good.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 1Kingdom 2 years ago
1Kingdom
I can provide evidence of the Supernatural power to heal through the name of Jesus
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Oh it's a LMGIG debate, that makes sense.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
darthebearncLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G go to Con due to Pro's grammatical errors. Con gains arguments based on the fact that Pro makes several contradictions and concedes to tons of Con's points throughout the debate.