The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Can any religious ideals be 100% proven?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 449 times Debate No: 81817
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)




First round is acceptance.

Religious Ideals: The factors of religion that are based in myth. (This does not include values statements such as "Love thy neighbor as thyself".)

To subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.

I look forward to debating with you (whoever you might be). This is a facts based debate, not opinions. I don't particularly care to be preached at.


I accept the terms and look forward to the debate.

Good luck, Con!
Debate Round No. 1


miloisqueer forfeited this round.


Lupricona forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Firstly, I would like to sincerely apologize for missing a round, I was quite busy and didn't have time to give this debate the attention it deserves.

I believe that no religious ideals can be proven beyond a doubt. Having read through the bible, I've found that many of the things held true can be easily disproved. However, there are certain things that can not, in my eyes, be proven or disproven, such as the existence of a god.

Please tell me what evidence you've found to the contrary.


I am not certain what my opponent wants me to prove, whether it be things from the Bible, or the existence of God.

My opponent states that they read the Bible, and has found that many claims from the Bible can be easily disproved. I would like my opponent to offer examples of what is easily disproved.

My opponent also argued that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven.

I disagree with both of these statements.

Firstly, having read the Bible, and studied many of the claims it has made, I have discovered that the claims it makes can be corroborated by other historical and archaeological evidences. When people claim that the Bible has been disproven, it is usually the case in which evidence is ignored.

To make one specific example, the Bible claims that Jesus was resurrected.

There are 11 historical facts that most secular (non-christian) critical scholars agree to. They are (1):

-Jesus died by crucifixion.
-He was buried.
-His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
-The tomb was empty (the most contested).
-The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
-The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
-The resurrection was the central message.
-They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
-The Church was born and grew.
-James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
-Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

There are three possible scenarios: The early disciples all had hallucinations of Christ at different times and places and were convinced that it was real; The early disciples hid Christ's body from the tomb, spread the lie that he was resurrected, and were tortured and killed to protect that lie; or Christ was resurrected by God and this is what the apostle's saw and preached.

The apostles directly denied that what they saw were hallucinations. (2) This either leaves the apostles lying and then dying for that lie, or the resurrection actually happened. I argue that Christ was really resurrected by God, because it is not reasonable to believe that they lied. If anyone objects to this (like my opponent), then they must give a motive for why the apostles would be tortured and killed for the lie- what was their benefit? Also, examples must be given for people who died protecting something they knew to be a lie (not examples of people dying for what they believe to be true, but what they definitely knew was false). If these two problems are not refuted, one must conclude that Christ was resurrected by God.

When looking at the existence of God, it can be proven that He exists.

Like mathematics, certain forms of logic are necessarily true, like 2 plus 2 equaling 4.

One such example for a logical proof of God's existence is the ontological argument.

As everyone would agree, there necessarily exists the first cause of everything. What my opponent and I will disagree about is whether that first cause is God, or quantum fluctuations, or what have you.

Everything that exists (besides the prime mover) is dependent on another part of existence. For example, the organism that is a cat is dependent on cells and structures, which are in turn dependent on molecules, which in turn are dependent on atoms, which are dependent on quarks, and so on.


The prime mover is not dependent on any part of reality. The prime mover exists through itself, not something that causes itself. As you can see from the text image, the prime mover would also be the simplest form/most fundamental of existence. As it is the most fundamental form of existence, it exists without boundaries.

To understand the significance of boundaries, refer again to the text image. The cat is higher up on the form of complexity. A cat cannot be both a cat and dog at the same time. It is limited to being a cat. However, cells are not limited to cats, and can be formed to exist in other animals. However, cells are limited to exist in that form. Atoms are not limited to animals- they form all parts of the universe.

As we travel farther down the simplicity of existence, the less boundaries exist, and the more forms can be created from these states of existence.

Recall the famous double split experiment, where a single photon behaved both like a particle and a wave. This is possible because boundaries decrease as we travel down the chain of existence.

So, the prime mover must be free from all boundaries. It is necessarily limitless. Also, because it is at the lowest point in the chain of existence, it can interact with all of reality. Not only does this prime mover interact with all of reality, all of reality is continuously depending on it.

The prime mover that intends to create order (information) in the universe, while also continuously upholding all of creation, can only be understood as the eternal mind that underlies all of reality. This is otherwise known as God.


(2) Luke Chapter 24
Debate Round No. 3


miloisqueer forfeited this round.


Lupricona forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 11 months ago
YES THEY CAN. All of them. every last iota. challenge m on it.
Posted by Jonbonbon 11 months ago
My tits are never calm. Although you shouldn't get so easily offended when someone beats you in an argument with your own source :P
Posted by ithink-ithink 11 months ago
So actually, pro is really easy.

I think in absolutes, therefore religious ideals can be 100% proven.
Posted by ithink-ithink 11 months ago
I dont want to debate this, because I know it will be circular, for the following reasons;
- religious people, and even people who think like religious people because they are so surrounded by religion (and therefore their ideals) are based on absolutes. Therefore within their own religion, it is impossible to disprove an ideal.
- the argument against it would be to say that nothing can be absolute (see philosophical argument on absolutism)
- because religious people etc etc, think in absolutes, they can never understand the concept of uncertainty in terms of ideals, and therefore arguments based on uncertainty can never be used without it turning into a circular argument.
Posted by miloisqueer 11 months ago
I actually am sunshine, maybe calm your tits a bit. @Jonbonbon

@Robkwoods: The things I particularly had in mind were perhaps the existence of gods, an afterlife, anything with more "magical" type elements.
Posted by Jonbonbon 11 months ago
He's not responding anymore.
Posted by Robkwoods 11 months ago
What Ideals in particular are you talking about?
Posted by HomelySherlock 11 months ago
Pro is gonna take a pretty big challenge. Even theists can accept that faith is not provable.
Posted by Jonbonbon 11 months ago
@miloisqueer: literally the first four definitions agree with me in some way or another. Taking the fifth definition just because it's the definition that almost agrees with you doesn't make you right.

@ZacGraphics: I would say it's impossible to completely disprove any major religion. Proving universal negatives is almost impossible in general.
Posted by ZacGraphics 11 months ago
Alright, I raise the question, can any major religion be 100% disproven?
No votes have been placed for this debate.