The Instigator
Tomas154c
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ImAJesusFreak
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Does God Exist?

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 808 times Debate No: 70241
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

Tomas154c

Con

This debate will be primarily concerning the existence of the judea/christian God. My argument is that there is simply no proof. I challenge anyone to show me the evidence in favor of Gods existence.
ImAJesusFreak

Pro

The major evidence I will first bring to the table is *Drum roll please* THE BIBLE!!! The evidence is literally right in front of you and you choose not to accept it, regarding it as another book in a bookshelf. The bible has it all. It shows the beginning of time, history, the best way to live life, Jesus and his teachings and stuff, and even what will happen in the near future. The bible has no errors or non-consistencies. It IS consistent and cant be proved wrong, because it us too perfect.
Debate Round No. 1
Tomas154c

Con

The Bible is not a reliable source of history. The gospels, for instance, weren't written long after the death of Jesus and are filled with gaping holes and contradictions. Johns gospel specifically remarks how his followers were surprised that he was born in Galilee rather than Bethlehem as was expected from the prophesy in the Old Testament said. Luke and Mathew claimed differently, that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem. Although They get him there by different routes. Mathew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem all along, moving to Nazareth long after the birth of Jesus, on their return from Egypt where they fled from King Herod and the massacre of the innocents. Luke, by contrast, acknowledges that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born. Luke said that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he was of the lineage of King David for the census decreed by Caesar Augustus. However, historians have proved this to be nonsense. There was indeed a census, though it was not decreed by Caesar Augustus but by Governor Quirinius and it wasn't for the empire as a whole. But it was too late: in AD, long after Herod's death. It is also just absurd to believe that Joseph would be expected to go to a city where his 1000 year old ancestor had lived earlier. Also if Jesus really born from a virgin, Josephs lineage shouldn't be relevant and could not be used to fulfill the prophesy that the messiah would be descended from David.
Also one thing that is important I would like to know to continue this debate is whether you believe the creation story in the Bible to be literal.
ImAJesusFreak

Pro

I recognize your knowledge of Dawkins

Supposedly, Matthew, Luke, and John give conflicting information about where Jesus was born. Dawkins wrote:

A good example of the colouring by religious agendas is the whole heart-warming legend of Jesus" birth in Bethlehem.... John"s gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem.... Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently, by deciding that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all (p. 93, emp. in orig.).

Exactly where did the apostle John indicate that Jesus was "not born in Bethlehem?" Dawkins quoted from John 7:41-42, wherein the apostle recounts how, "Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (KJV, emp. added). Does this passage teach that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem? Not at all. John merely pointed out that some in the crowd who were listening to Jesus asked if the Messiah would come from Galilee or Bethlehem? These individuals knew that Jesus had grown up in Galilee (just as all of the gospel accounts teach: Matthew 2:22-23; Mark 1:24; 10:47; Luke 2:39-40; 4:16; John 1:45-46; 7:27). This group simply made the assumption that, because Jesus had grown up in Galilee, he was born in Galilee. But, that simply was not true (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4). These individuals were ignorant of the place of Jesus" birth.

Similarly, Richard Dawkins is ignorant of what constitutes a genuine contradiction, if he actually believes that this statement in John"s gospel account really contradicts what Matthew and Luke wrote. Were John to write that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, or that Jesus was born in Galilee, only then would there be a contradiction. But John never wrote that he believed that Jesus was born in Galilee rather than Bethlehem. The apostle merely reported how some of those who listened to Jesus imagined that He was born in Galilee.

Your hometown/census problem, see http://www.comereason.org...
and
http://www.themoorings.org...

The virgin birth problem
This is a familiar criticism of the credentials of Jesus to be the Messiah. This comes, of course, despite the fact that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies of being crucified (Psalms 22), being pierced, rejected and silent before accusers (Isaiah 53), being born in Bethlehem (Micah 5), riding into Jeruslaem on a donkey, being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah) and many more. Given that Jesus wonderfully and, indeed, spectacularly fulfilled all the prophecies of the Messiah (Luke 24:44), we should not be at all surprised to learn that Jesus did indeed fulfill the prophecy that he would be of the line of David as well. Let me get to the question. It is true that Jesus was the son, biologically, only of Mary. That is true. In fact, it was prophecied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (maiden) in Isaiah 9:14. Now, if this critic of the messianic claims of Jesus is right, then, on the one hand, the Messiah must be born of a virgin, but on the other hand, he must NOT be born of a virgin in order to fulfill the requirement to be the physical seed of the line of David. Clearly, this is not a correct understanding of the text. Here is how I see it. Joseph adopted Jesus as his son, making Jesus, technically, only the adopted son of David. But then, all of us Gentile Christians are exactly the same thing. We, too, are not legitimate heirs of the promise of Abraham, yet, like Jesus, we are adopted into sonship with the Father. Ephesians 2:14-22 talks about us being real children of Abraham through adoption. I see evidence and a prophecy of the grace of God in that we are chosen as adopted sons and Jesus was chosen as well as an adopted son of the line of David. Your critic friend says that the Holy Spirit was Jesus" father and, in a sense, he was, but will this person deny Joseph the right to adopt the son of Mary and give him a father? This is a weak argument. By the way, it may well be true that the Jewish people accounted family through the father, but Jewishness was passed on through the mother. Mary was also descended from David, as is shown by the dual genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Scholars believe that most likely the two genealogies are through Mary (Luke) and through Joseph (Matthew). I believe the ones bringing this charge are making their case look stronger than it really is. For example, Leviticus 24:10 does not at all say that tribal affiliation is only conferred through the physical father. In fact, it is not even talking about that. Even Numbers 1:18-44 does not prove that one cannot be considered a member of Judah if only the mother was a Jew. It only demonstates that this was how tribal numbers were accounted. I believe that the argument is based at least as much on Jewish tradition as on any stated law of Moses. However, in any case, if God chooses to adopt Jesus into the line of Judah as a sign of his grace"if God considers Jesus the legitimate son of Joseph, then who am I to argue with this? God can do whatever he likes, and logical arguments by Jewish critics of Christianity do not change this fact. Like I already said, the Bible contains dual prophecies that the Messiah would be the son of a Virgin and that he would be a direct descendant of David. Jesus fulfilled both prophecies is a way which none of us could have conceived on our own. He is the physical descendent of David through his mother. He is the adopted son of David through his father, by an adoption consistent with the Christian message of our adopted sonship, and he also fufilled the prophecy to be born of a virgin. I believe we should turn this argument on its head and show how wonderfully this all shows the messianic glory of Jesus and the grace of the Father to accept us as his sons. One more point. Jesus" descent in Luke is indeed through Mary. Yes, it is true that the genealogy mentions Joseph, not Mary. One more time, this shows the grace of God. Obviously, Luke was well aware of the genealogy in Matthew. This line of descent through Mary was no accident. Nevertheless, the list consists of male descendents. In the last step, Luke chooses to mention Joseph, not Mary because he was indeed the adopted father of Jesus. One more time, what the critics feel is proof that Jesus is not the legitimate Messiah turns out to be further evidence of God"s grace. Certainly Luke saw it that way. The idea that this was some sort of mistake does not work. Obviously, the careful historian Luke was not going to make a mistake about the name of the grandfathers of Jesus!!! Jacob was the father of Joseph (Matthew 1:16) and Heli was the father of Mary (Luke 3:24).
Debate Round No. 2
Tomas154c

Con

In regard to my argument concerning John 7:41-42, although it doesn't quite indicate the messiah came from Galilee, John made no attempt whatsoever to explain himself.

Luke may be mistaken about which census but they would follow Egypts practices.It is Roman practice to assess taxes province by province. These undocumented papyri give the practice for Egypt. Egypt, at the time of the incorporation into the Roman world, was made an imperial province, whose revenue went to the Emperors, and not to the Senate. Any practices in Egypt would not apply elsewhere.There is absolutely no support to Luke's implication of worldwide census or a empire-wide tax. In fact, it is quite contrary to well-documented practice.

Ephesians 2:14-22 does't talk about being adopted children of Abraham, not even close. Paul points his readers to the Church as the Body of Christ, making the gathered people the locus of religious practice. That the Church is no longer a people waiting in the Temple for the immediate return of Christ, but are themselves the sign of Christ's salvation, they are the new temple.

Both the first chapter of Matthew and in the third chapter of Luke contain a putative genealogy of Joseph alone. Although these two genealogies completely contradict each other, neither suggests that Mary was a descendant of king of David. Nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament, for that matter, is there a claim that Mary was a descendant of the House of David. On the contrary, Luke plainly asserts that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary.(Luke 1:27)

Again I I would like to know to continue this debate is whether you believe the creation story in the Bible to be literal.
ImAJesusFreak

Pro

Hah i hate this site. I Laugh in yo face. Im the only one that believes the bible to be literal so im gonna follow his word OUT OF THIS SITE!! I love you man, so does god. His love is greater and so much more powerful. So i hope you have a good life journey and hope you get saved soon! Bye!
Debate Round No. 3
Tomas154c

Con

Look I didn't set out to convince you that God doesn't exist because I knew theres nothing I could say to convince you. I came up with a reasonable argument for my case, and yet even though you couldn't respond with a good rebuttal it just made you angry and you will surely continue to blindly follow your beliefs. Also Ive seen a similar debate of your, rather you got alot more angry and threatened the guy he was going to hell. This is the problem I have with religion. It destroys reasonable thinking. I am not telling you that this is what you must and must not believe. I'm telling you to look at the evidence and use your reasonable thinking, and don't base your descision on whether or not it makes you feel comfortable or not. I was raised a Catholic and had went to Catholic school my entire life so I know the Bible probably just as much as you do. But the Bible is just not reliable. Bart D Ehrman, an American New Testament scholar and one of the leading scholars in his career, wrote a book called "Forged" in which he explains how 70 percent of the New Testament writings were not written by those to whom they are attributed. This is a matter that many Biblical scholars have contended to.
One last point I wanted to make was that the creationist story in the Bible is totally contradicted by what we know about Evolution and the age of the Earth. There are those who take it literally, most likely people who have never been educated about Evolution or are just delusional. But many people claim it is a metaphorical story, which begs to ask the question where did original sin come from? We know the creationist story is certainly not true but why are we born in sin then? What did Jesus die on the cross for?
ImAJesusFreak

Pro

ImAJesusFreak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Tomas154c

Con

Tomas154c forfeited this round.
ImAJesusFreak

Pro

ImAJesusFreak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by debate_power 1 year ago
debate_power
Pro likes to quit with a bang. Pro's account is no longer active.
Posted by ImAJesusFreak 1 year ago
ImAJesusFreak
Most of this is off a website, just clarifying why it would say " your critic friend"
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
that's fine. Thing is it's all based on faith & that's the issue you seem to miss & use your own definition to fit your argument. That's why I had been so adamant with regards with refuting how you view faith & evidence. It has to be your way or the highway, so-to-speak. I don't care is you believe or not, your choice & that's what faith is all about ....... our choosing to have faith in something that our evidence has shown us that it's worth our belief. That goes for everything, not only in God. It seems that you just wanted the words 'evidence' & 'faith' to be limited to a belief in God. Therefore, if faith in something other than God means oe thing, then the words apply to all evidence & faith for something ...... including God.
Posted by TommyB12 1 year ago
TommyB12
I don't assert that a god doesn't exist just that there is a lack of evidence for a god. Those are two different things.
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
But just cuz there's no concrete description of God, it doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Your, "...describe certain behaviors, feelings or attitudes that humans have ..." describes the faith we have in those "certain behaviors, feelings or attitudes" we toward others that lets us believe those behaviors, etc are for real (to us anyway), just like having faith in God. (Those behaviors, feelings or attitudes are the evidence we use to determine if we can have faith to trust or believe). We may use other 'evidence' to have faith in other things in our lives.
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
No one has tried to describe God as an tangible or concrete entity as you say. That's where you have made your mistake. You try to ask for something that is impossible to know ...... at this point anyway. Maybe you need this, while others do not.

BTW, I was describing faith not the aspect of love with regards to a belief. It's the belief in something that gives us the faith to make it true.

I could give you my evidence for it, but like I stated b4, what is evidence for one person may not be evidence for another. Believe what you want, but to attempt to put a definition in a box to frame your argument is ludicrous. Ya see, God told us it takes faith & that's all that is required of us. Some make the leap, others don't. The evidence I have seen since I have made that leap is overwhelming for me to believe my having faith is worth it. Ya see, I don't intend on proving anything, just giving you a definition of faith ...... that's all. I just enjoy seeing how many ways people try to disprove God or try to lump all people into one category or another ....... & for what? Just realize, just cuz you frame something one way, that doesn't mean it is that way .......... maybe only to you it is.
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
Your, " ... but then present no evidence of existence." & it seems that the definition you supplied substantiates my own. The words 'or information' follows what one can use as evidence while another rebuffs the same. The information, wherever I have gotten it from, may suit a reason to have faith or believe in something. & your, "Evidence comprises the available proofs to be reasonably certain something is true," also holds true. OK, what I accept as what it takes to be true may be different than what you believe. The key word here is 'reasonably.'
Your, "The definition of faith is strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof or complete trust in something," may be copied & pasted from a site somewhere, altho it is proven to incorrect on other sites. Go check this out. Anyway, the most acceptable one is what I gave you earlier, which is a belief in something that doesn't require empirical of definitive proof. Plain & simple. One does not have to put the word 'religion' in any context to define faith. It's the same for all.

Your, "Faith does not rely on proofs by definition so one cannot demonstrate a reason for others to believe in a god by faith alone," is fine for you personally to hold true, just like I said b4, but doesn't mean it is universally held true.
Posted by TommyB12 1 year ago
TommyB12
No one has claimed that love is a tangible entity like a god.(see my previous comment). Love is a word a linguistic term used to describe certain behaviors, feelings or attitudes that humans have. To claim that a concrete thing exists like a deity you must have some evidence for it.
Posted by ImAJesusFreak 1 year ago
ImAJesusFreak
Tommy, explain and prove the existence of love.
Posted by TommyB12 1 year ago
TommyB12
Of course faith is the believe in something that can't be proven. The fallacy is that nothing can be proven. We can have degrees of certainty. We are maximally certain for example that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. We can do this based on observation. We don't ever say something is proven because there is no way yet to solve hard solipsism.

Belief in a god is different from terms such at love or loyalty. Those are words that have an agreed upon set of definitions to describe concepts or behaviors linguistically. A deity is a being that one claims to exist that can exert influence upon the world. Those who believe in a god make a positive claim that god exists but then present no evidence of existence. They say you need faith which is seemingly a cop out because there is no evidence.

Websters definition of evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Evidence comprises the available proofs to be reasonably certain something is true.

The definition of faith is strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof or complete trust in something.

Faith does not rely on proofs by definition so one cannot demonstrate a reason for others to believe in a god by faith alone.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Tomas154cImAJesusFreakTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a neutral vote. Both Pro and Con had deeply flawed arguments, using the Bible as their sole source. They also both forfeited the final rounds.