The Instigator
jp_porwisz10
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Envisage
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Christianity

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 2 votes the winner is...
Envisage
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 55245
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

jp_porwisz10

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Facts/Argument
Round 3: Facts/Argument
Round 4: Closing statements

I look forward to my opponents argument. Good luck
Envisage

Con

Thanks for the open debate Pro, I gladly accept.

Point of clarification; could Pro please clarify if he wants to narrow the focus of the debate, as the topic is very broad as it stands. I am fine whichever way he wants to debate the issue, just the issue can range from God's existence to Christianity's societal impact etc.

Anyway, best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
jp_porwisz10

Pro

This debate is about the belifs of Christianity.

The belifs of Christianity started around the time of Jesus Christ, which is also when the Bible was written. The Bible is almost a textbook for Christians, and it serves as what we belive as people. Christians belive that God created the Earth in 7 days, which is why we have a 7 day week. If God is not real, why did every from the 16th century to below belive in God? Because the events of what happened are still fresh in everyones mind.
Envisage

Con

I. Preface
Thanks for the open debate Pro. I will try and keep my arguments brief.

I will make my arguments in this round and rebut in later rounds.

II. Problem of Evil
The Christian God is regarded as an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent and omniscient being. The problem of evil attacks the omnibenevolent attribute of god. The argument is formalised as follows:

P1. If the Christian God exists THEN gratuitous suffering will not exist
P2. Gratuitous suffering exists
Conclusion. The Christian God does not exist.

Gratuitous suffering - Suffering that is not coupled with any redeeming good.

This argument is a trivial modus tollens by the law of the contrapositive. Therefore the argument is logically valid, and Pro needs to dispute the premises to avoid the conclusion.

In defence of premise 1, an omnibenevolent being is one of maximal goodness. An omnipotent AND omnibenevolent being would be both willing and capable of giving maximal goodness within the world. From this, we would trivially expect there to be zero instances of suffering not coupled with a redeeming good in the world.

However we see plenty of evidence for this being the case, millions of children in the world die in great pain as infants.(1) Moreover, a large fraction of these children are both unbaptised and unexposed to the Christian doctorine. Therefore are 'unentitled' to receive redemption in heaven according to the Christian doctorine. We don't even need yo go this far, however. As even stronger arguments can be made for animal suffering. We only need to look as far as our nearest chicken farm to see millions of chickens living in atrocious conditions, with absolutely no redeeming qualities for them in this life. An even stronger case for animals not having access to heavenly redemption can be made too.(2) Thereby satisfying the evidential burden of premise 2.

III. Model argument from evil
This argument I have borrowed from zmikecuber. This argument uses the extra attribute of omnipresence against God's existence.

P1. If the Christian God exists THEN gratuitous suffering will not exist
P2. Gratuitous suffering is possible
P3. If gratuitous suffering is possible then there is a metaphysically possible world where it exists
C1. The Christian God does not exist in one metaphysically possible world
P4. The Christian God is defined as a being that necessarily exists in all metaphysically possible worlds (omnipresence)
C2. The Christian God exists in no metaphysically possible world (including this one)

The only new premise I have injected is premise 2, which is even more innocent than the P2 of the problem of evil. Since we only need to accept gratuitous sufferings' possibility for the argument for work. We can readily conceive of a world where gratuitous suffering exists. Neither is this world inherently contradictory or logically unsound. Therefore we have good reason for accepting as metaphysically possible.

Conclusion:

Back to Pro!

References:

http://www.who.int...
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com...
Debate Round No. 2
jp_porwisz10

Pro

My opponent here thiks that because suffering exists, God isn't real. Let me ask you this: How does this prove that God isn't real? This argument does not prove anything. Now, i will ask you another question: How was everything in the universe created by an explosion? To me, this does not make sense. How did water come? How did windows come? How did food come?
Envisage

Con

... I extend my previous arguments

Now into rebuttals:

"Christians belive that God created the Earth in 7 days, which is why we have a 7 day week. "

We also have the God Thor in the day Thursday's name, and the God Saturn in the day Saturday. This seems to a non-sequitur.

"If God is not real, why did every from the 16th century to below belive in God?"

1. Argument ad ignorantum (I can't think of any other reason why X, so Y)
2. They did? Hindus believe in God? I am pretty sure they existed 400 years ago, which seems to debunk this argument.

"How was everything in the universe created by an explosion?"

I never made that claim, and it is irrelevant to the resolution.

"To me, this does not make sense. How did water come?"

Even if I can't come up with a cogent answer to this, it does nothing to help demonstrate Pro's case. It's made worse that it's pretty basic chemistry, however.

"How did windows come? How did food come?"

See above.
Debate Round No. 3
jp_porwisz10

Pro

jp_porwisz10 forfeited this round.
Envisage

Con

Extend, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
I have made a much stronger version of this argument in my specific debate regarding the problem of evil:

http://www.debate.org...

Which is a rebuilt and buffed version of this one, if you were interested.
Posted by cwt002 2 years ago
cwt002
"If the Christian God exists then unwarranted suffering will not exist."

- To answer this question there must be knowledge of the Christian God. I am interested to see how this statement is rebutted. I really hope there is significant evidence.
- Although it is tough, I will wait to post my thoughts and evidence after the debate so I do not hinder the argument.
Posted by Valtin 2 years ago
Valtin
Because after the 16th century, the Bible was actually translated and read by the common folk, and they found out it is not from God, that is how.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
jp_porwisz10EnvisageTied
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: Pro offered no arguments and tried to switch the bop ALS forfeit
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
jp_porwisz10EnvisageTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments had many spelling errors and were very difficult to interpret whereas Con's arguments were well written and easily understandable so S&G goes to Con. All of Pro's arguments were based on his own ignorance and incredulity and basic scientific ideas. Con went above and beyond on refutations, and even though the BoP was not on him, made several strong arguments against the existence of god. Argument points go to Con. Con was the only one to use sources so he gets that point as well.