The Instigator
KKfu
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mrparkers
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Christianity is the truth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Mrparkers
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,460 times Debate No: 22893
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

KKfu

Pro

Hello, I look forward to this debate.
There is so much proof that god is real, and that Christanity is true.
I will give you as much proof as a can.
Christianity is very popular and there is examples of the truth that so many people overlook.
Come back at me!
Mrparkers

Con

I accept the debate, arguing for the Con side. Great topic, I'm looking forward to this debate.

As custom, I will wait for the Pro to post an argument before I make mine.
Debate Round No. 1
KKfu

Pro

Well, you know what happened to the Titanic, right? Well, the person that built it was interviewed, and he was asked "How tough do you think this ship is?" And he said, "Not even God can sink this ship." and we all know what happened to the Titanic Right?
Another example is when some people were in a full car, drunk. and one mother grabbed her daughter's hand, and said "May God protect you" and she mocked the name and said "Only if he sits in the trunk." and they got in a car wreck that killed them all. and the only thing that was perfect was the trunk. They couldn't even tell what kind of car it was it was so bad. And in the trunk there was 2 dozen eggs. NONE of them were even CRACKED.
God was there.
Mrparkers

Con

Before presenting my arguments, I will briefly outline the framework for this debate, alongside the burden of proof. Due to the philosophic nature of this topic (and the stance that I have taken), it is impossible to argue against the resolution that Christianity is the truth. Rather, to successfully negate this topic, I am only required to defend the status quo. Thus, the burden of proof is on the Pro, while my job as the Con is to simply negate the arguments made by the Pro.

In order to win the debate, the Pro must prove that every tenant or major aspect of belief in the Christian faith is true. This includes the following:

1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
2) This God created the universe and everything in it
3) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sin
4) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live again

Although there are more beliefs to the Christian faith, I will limit the debate to the following four, unless my opponent has a problem with this. The Pro must prove that every single one of these four things is true. If the Pro fails to prove even one, the Con must win the round.

In order to prove that any of the four propositions that I listed are true, the Pro may use logic (popular arguments or syllogisms) or evidence. Personal testimonies and opinions DO NOT count as evidence.

With that being said, I will now address the contentions that my opponent has given me.






The first argument the Pro gives me can be summed up as such: "The Titanic was a tough ship that sank. Thus, God exists"

With this argument, the Pro fails to fit his own debate topic: "Christianity is the truth". This debate isn't about proving that a god exists, it's about proving that the Christian God exists. Thus, I don't even need to respond to this as it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.






The second argument that the Pro gives me can be summed up as such: "A car full of people got into a terrible car crash, but the eggs in the trunk were not cracked. Thus, God exists".

Not only does this argument (again) fail to address the topic of the debate which the Pro set, but it isn't even an argument. This is simply a story that the Pro gives which cannot even be verified to be true. And even if it were true, it still doesn't prove anything. Thus, I am not required to address it.




Given my arguments against the Pro's points, the status quo still stands. For this reason, I negate.

Your move, Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
KKfu

Pro

As the Con said, one of the beliefs was that God exists, so why wouldn't those points be irrevalant to the topic?
And I will procede with my argument.

God, sent his one and only son, Jesus, to come and die for our sins. The Bible says that the punishment of sin is death. And that was exactly what Jesus Christ did. Die. And there was records of Jesus Christ being tortured, and killed; how he was killed, and when he came back from the dead. Death and sin had lost it's sting. Why do we still die then? It's because we still have sin in are hearts. But we don't have to sacrifice anything. The ultimate sacrifice was there.
I rest my case.
Mrparkers

Con

First, my opponent did not attack the framework that I setup for this debate. Thus, I can assume that he agrees with it, and it shall be used for the rest of the debate and serve as judging criteria at the end of the debate.

Second, to address my opponent's question: "As the Con said, one of the beliefs was that God exists, so why wouldn't those points be irrevalant to the topic?"

There are two reasons that the Pro's 'arguments' do not stand:

1) They do not prove that a god exists. Statements from certain individuals about how tough a ship's hull is and made up stories about eggs not breaking in a car crash do little to demonstrate the existence of a supernatural being existing.
2) Even if the Pro's arguments DID prove that a god existed, it still doesn't fit with the topic because it doesn't prove that the Christian god exists. There are thousands of made-up gods in the world: Zeus, Ra, or Vishnu to name a few. What good would the Pro's argument do if it proved that one of those existed instead of the Christian god?


Third, I will address the new argument that my opponent introduced. The Pro claimed that Jesus died for our sins. To justify this claim, the Pro said that both the Bible and other historical sources tell the story of the Ressurection. Given that the Pro did not cite what historical sources he was actually talking about, the only thing he has left to rely on is the Bible.

In this argument that I'm introducing, I will attempt to prove that the Bible isn't a reliable source for information, and thus, cannot be used as evidence to justify claims that my opponent has made. I will do so using the following two contentions:

1) The Bible is inconsistent
2) The Bible is inaccurate

Contention 1:

Anyone who is familiar with the Bible knows that there are contradictions all over the place. There are, in fact, more than 400 contradictions in the Bible
[1], and that's just being generous. Here are the ones that I found most interesting.

1. Does God lie?[2]
Hebrews 6:18 - "It was impossible for God to lie."
Jeremiah 20:7 - "O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived."

2. Does God love everyone?[3]
John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Psalm 5:5 - "The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity."

3. Does God want anyone to go to Hell?[4]
1 Timothy 2:3-4 - "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved."
Proverbs 16:4 - "The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."

There, of course, more contradictions than those three, I encourage the Pro to look at the first link I will provide in my citations. These contradictions in the Bible demonstrate that there are, indeed, some discrepancies that must be false (God can't love everyone and hate some people at the same time). Thus, given the incredible amount of contradictions in the Bible, it cannot be used as evidence to justify any claim of the supernatural. But this is only the first contention...

Contention 2:

The Bible has been proven to be inaccurate about a number of claims that it makes. For this contention, I will address the absurd claims that the Bible makes, using evidence and logic.

1. The age of the earth.

The scripture that the Pro would defend as being true tells us that the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.[5] Modern day science, however, tends to disagree by about 4.55 billion years, with a margin of error of 1%. The difference between the scriptural accounts and modern day science is that modern day science provides evidence and scientific explanations to back up their claims. Using radiometric dating, scientists have found rocks on the Earth that surpass 3 billion years of age.[6] I won't go into too much detail, citation #6 has all of the information you will need. This information is properly cited as well, I encourage you to check it out.

2. Noah's Ark

Everyone is familiar with the story of Noah's ark. God was disappointed with the humans currently living on the Earth, so he instructed one family to construct an ark which included 2 (or more) of every animal, and enough food for said animals to last a little more than a year (how long the flood lasted[7]). I also think it's worth mentioning that before the flood began, God, using his powers of omniscience, already knew that the family that he chose to build the ark would disappoint him in the same way as the humans that he drowned, rendering the entire endeavour futile, yet decided to carry on with his plans anyways. Regardless, it only takes common sense to understand why this story could never have actually happened as it was told, but for the sake of the debate, I will do my best to debunk it. All of the evidence for this section can be found in citation #8.


For starters, it is utterly impossible to build an ark 450 feet long solely out of wood. As TalkOrigins says, "Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped."
Secondly, there was no feasible way for Noah to obtain all of the animals required to make the journey. Some animals, such as penguins or koalas, live on entirely different continents, meaning that there was simply no way that they could have been included on the ark.
Thirdly, all of the animals on the ark would have required enough fresh food to live for a year. How exactly was Noah able to keep a year's supply of food for every animal fresh for an entire year? Let's not forget that all of this food had to have a place on the ark as well, how could all of it fit?

There are more arguments against the flood, but I don't feel like I need to address them.





To conclude, I would like to reiterate the framework for the debate and demonstrate that Pro has so far failed to meet this framework in not just one, but all four areas.

Pro must prove the following to win this debate:

1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Pro has not even attempted to prove this yet, the status quo stands.

2) This God created the universe and everything in it
Pro has not even attempted to prove this yet, the status quo stands.

3) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sin
Pro has attempted to prove this using the Bible and other uncited material. Given my newest argument, the Bible cannot be used as evidence for this claim, thus the status quo stands.

4) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live again
Pro has attempted to prove half of this, but the status quo stands for the same reason as #3.



With that being said, I urge a negative vote.



Citations:
1. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
2. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
3. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
4. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
5. http://www.albatrus.org...
6. http://www.talkorigins.org...
7. http://wiki.answers.com...
8. http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 3
KKfu

Pro

KKfu forfeited this round.
Mrparkers

Con

Extend my arguments.

The status quo stands in all four areas.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by gr33k_fr33k5 5 years ago
gr33k_fr33k5
this is depressing . . . its as though these people have one example for why their God "exists" which doesn't prove anything, and then revert to useless mumbling after the obvious flaw in their argument is pointed out. The have no reason to believe what they believe. . .

Thankfully this is typical of all people regardless of religion/beliefs.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Wow... This is just sad.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Apparently he is xD but the funniest thing is that they all presuppose God actually exists to do those things, which is the entire purpose of the debate xD
Posted by Mrparkers 5 years ago
Mrparkers
I wasn't sure if he was serious about them, so I responded as best I could :P
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Actually, not sure how legit this win would be, considering how pro's arguments make, literally, no sense.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Oh how I wish I was in this debate as con. I would actually legitly win a religion debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
KKfuMrparkersTied
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 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: Conduct for FF, but PRO made no reasonable arguments. MrParker adequately rebutted all points made.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
KKfuMrparkersTied
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 dismantled the pro's arguments, and I believe that God exists but that is still a far cry from saying that Christianity is "the truth".... Arguments to the con, conduct to the con for the FF round