The Instigator
Mariodude34500
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
evilred79
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Does God Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Mariodude34500
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 685 times Debate No: 70787
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

Mariodude34500

Con

I will argue aganist god. My opponent who is making the positive claim will have the burden of proof.
evilred79

Pro

The Bible, therefore, gives us sufficient reason to believe that it is the Word of the living God, who does exist and who has revealed Himself to the world. Another reason that we know God exists is because He has appeared in human flesh. Jesus Christ was God Almighty who became a man.
Debate Round No. 1
Mariodude34500

Con

Ok so first you say the bible is proof. No you have to prove the bible was written by god which you don't prove so that is invalid unless you prove it. That's like me saying the book about the three little pigs proves the three little pigs are real it's ridiculous I have to prove the three little pigs where real outside of the book. The same goes with the bible.

Then you say Jesus christ appeared and that's proof. Again you need to prove that because you didn't give any. All you did was make a declarative statement which counts for nothing. That's like me saying We've seen the tooth fairy just because I said it doesn't make it true it has to be proven same goes for jesus. Even if a guy named jesus existed in that time and got killed by the romans there was no proof he was god's son. In fact there where people in jesus's time and his location that kept track of everyone claiming the be god or god's prophet and none of them mentioned him.

Please try again and present evidence this time.
evilred79

Pro

evilred79 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Mariodude34500

Con

Well my opponent forfeited he will have a chance to debunk my claims in the next round. However he'll need proof of what he says
evilred79

Pro

yes you are true but can you disprove god being false that is the key factor hell im not gonna tell you my age but i will tell you that you're arguing with a younger mind and hell i can possibly find more evidence than you can disprove if im wrong i will say but i will stand true to me
Debate Round No. 3
Mariodude34500

Con

Ok so I'm assuming you're saying that I can't disprove the bible? I can't tell your grammar is horrible. If that's the case two things

1. Burden of proof isn't on me to prove god exists and the bible is right. You're making the positive claim so you have to prove it.
2. We can prove parts of the bible are false I'll copy and paste a comment in are comment section

We have disproven parts of the bible.
Creation of the earth (we know how planets are created, bible claims earth came first, then stars when in fact stars come before planets)
Adam and Eve (through genes)
Noah's Ark (see the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate)
Flooding of the World (see the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate)
If we can continue to disprove the bible, I think we can say that the Christian God isn't real. However no one can prove that there is no God overall.
evilred79

Pro

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. 4
Mariodude34500

Con

Ok your entire argument is irrelevant. Your just saying it's in the bible so it's true. If you want to use the bible you have to prove the bible is accurate and please don't use the bible to prove the bible because that doesn't work. It's like saying these batman books prove batman is true.
evilred79

Pro

ok here it is i am wrong see im a good person to admit it im 16 sorry for the grammar error i get like that i am wrong i have failed i enjoyed this i enjoy our arguments want to have another one something less important sir :3
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mariodude34500 1 year ago
Mariodude34500
thanks blazzered. Always appreciate support.
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
I will be there to support ya Mariodude.
Posted by Mariodude34500 1 year ago
Mariodude34500
Also Right after I type this I will open another debate on if god is true or not. So if someone wants to debate me on it It will be open in about a minute.
Posted by Mariodude34500 1 year ago
Mariodude34500
lol thanks evilred. If you have a topic you wish to debate on PM me I'll debate you.
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
Evilred you're using Russell's teapot.
We don't have to disprove God. We are not making a claim that he does, well Mariodude may.
If you are making the claim that God exists, you need to prove it. If you use the bible as evidence, you need to prove that the bible is reliable.
I told you we have disproven the bible several times. Never has anything in the bible been proven true. You seem to be avoiding or ignoring that.
Posted by evilred79 1 year ago
evilred79
and your batman comment was fantastic Mariodude34500 just sayin man
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
Believing out of fear, is far different from believing out of faith. Believing out of faith would be where you truly believe in what is said., such as you do.
Believing out of fear would mean that the only reason you "believe" is just to get out of Hell. Not because you truly think the bible is true and that Jesus died for your sins, and that you love God and Jesus.
It's like putting a gun to someone's head and telling them to believe what you believe. They will claim to believe but with deep down will truly doubt and not fully believe.
Posted by Mariodude34500 1 year ago
Mariodude34500
Please prove the bible is true without using the bible.
Posted by evilred79 1 year ago
evilred79
Blazzered i enjoy this chat i want people to enlighten me but can you open my eyes and disprove this i want to have a thorough understanding outta this and like i said i wont give up my faith i will just admit i failed
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
The Virgin Mary and all the rest of that story you told is all irrelevant. I read it all. Also there is no actual evidence to back any of those stories up. If you're going to use the bible to support your claims, you need to prove the bible is a reliable source and prove the bible is true with actual evidence.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
Mariodude34500evilred79
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to provide sufficient evidence or prove his point .
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Paleophyte
Mariodude34500evilred79
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to provide any evidence to support the resolution.
Vote Placed by debatefox 1 year ago
debatefox
Mariodude34500evilred79
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: fsfsfgsgfdsgfg