The Instigator
Jerry947
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
orginelenaam
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Does the Christian 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 340 times Debate No: 92368
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Jerry947

Pro

This debate challenge is for orginelenaam who indicated that he would want to debate me on the existence of the Christian God.

The resolution is "Does the Christian God Exist?"

-Pro argues that the Christian God does exist.

-Con argues that the Christian God does not exist.

Rules...

Round 1:
-Pro gives definitions and sets up debate
-Con accepts the debate (acceptance only).

Round 2:
-Pro gives opening argument
-Con gives opening argument...no rebuttals.

Round 3:
-Pro responds to what Con argued
-Con responds to what Pro argued

Round 4:
-Both debaters conclude their arguments and finish responding to what each other wrote.

Definitions:

Christian God-The God described by the Bible.

Exist-have objective reality or being (https://www.google.com...).
orginelenaam

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Jerry947

Pro

1. The Existence of Jesus:

Almost all scholars in our age believe that Jesus was a real person (http://www.is-there-a-god.info...). There are many ancient historians (http://www.gotquestions.org...) that have written about him and we even have writings from the people that knew Jesus (The New Testament). You should have no doubt that Jesus was a real person. The famous historian Josephus for example stated that "Jesus was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pontius Pilate" In other words, we also have proof that Jesus was crucified. The Bible affirms all of this and even explains why Jesus' body went missing from the empty tomb. More on that later...

Jesus claimed to be God and his friends and his brothers claimed that he was God. Josephus tells us that Jesus was a good teacher. But it is a mistake to believe that Jesus was only a good teacher. C.S. Lewis stated that "is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg; or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or something worse." People of the time period indicate that Jesus was a good person and a good teacher...but you can't be these things if you are insane.

Lets go back to the empty tomb. The historian Luke states (chapter 24) that the tomb was found empty by women. How did this happen? The best explanation(http://www.reasonablefaith.org...) is that Jesus was who he said he was and did in fact rise from the dead. People might claim that Jesus never died but this is silly considering that we know he was crucified and that he was buried. No one could survive that process. Others claim that the body never went missing which is ridiculous considering the Romans and the Jews could have merely shown Christians the body and then their faith would be destroyed. And on top of that, there are people such as the New Testament writers that claim they along with 500 other people saw Jesus after his death. Even the brothers of Jesus (who previously disbelieved in the deity of their brother) came to believe that Jesus was God. Think about that for a moment...what would it take for you to believe that your brother (if you have one) was God? Would it take a resurrection? Nevertheless they became Christians.

Here are the specific sources that mention Jesus outside of the Bible...

Tacitus wrote that "Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...."

Pliny wrote that "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food " but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

The Babylonian Talmud says "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

Lucian wrote that "The Christians ... worship a man to this day " the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws."

Source: http://www.bethinking.org...

2. New Testament Sources

Again, the eye witnesses who wrote the four gospels (written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) also wrote that Jesus was killed on the cross and was missing three days later.

b. People that the Bible mentioned have been proven to have existed: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...

c. Events in the Bible have been confirmed to have happened: http://www.christiananswers.net...

d. And the Bible has been supported by archaeological findings: https://carm.org...

Luke, for example, mentioned "thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without an error" (http://www.everystudent.com...). Then of course there is the Sea of Galilee, Capernaum, Bethsaida, and etc..that have all been confirmed to have existed (https://www.youtube.com...). The point is that the Bible mentions real places which shows that it is historically reliable.

So the Bible is a reliable source. The gospel writer Luke has around 80 confirmed facts proven in the book of Acts and I just could go on and on (John has 59).

Therefore the information is accurate because it was written by real people who wrote about real people, real places, and about real events that took place. For example, when a person reads the gospel of Matthew, they are reading an eyewitness account of the events that took place. And because the document mentions real people, real places, real events, and details only an eyewitness would know...the source is reliable. There is no good reason to deny the reliability of the New Testament.

3. Gospels show that Jesus raised from the dead proving that Jesus is God

Matthew-https://www.biblegateway.com......

Mark-https://www.biblegateway.com......

Luke-https://www.biblegateway.com......

John-https://www.biblegateway.com......

Paul also has something to say about it-https://www.biblegateway.com......

Since the existence of Jesus is a fact, since he clearly was crucified, and since his tomb was found empty, and since people of the time period say that he rose from the dead, Jesus is the Christian God and he most definitely exists.

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and I hope this turns out well.
orginelenaam

Con

I will prove that god (defined as the main character from the Bible) cannot exist. I will do this by using a proof by contradiction.

== What is proof by contradiction? ==
Proof by contradiction is asserting a statement is false, so in this case that god DOES exist, and then showing that that leads to a logical inconsistency (for example: this means that this fruit is an apple and not an apple), which means that the asserted must be false, in this case that would mean that god doesn"t exist.
Extra information and examples: https://en.wikipedia.org...

== The proof ==
The key point here is that the Bible says God is almighty, and being almighty leads to logical inconsistencies.
1. Assume an almighty being can exist.
2. In this case this being can create an immovable object. (because it"s almighty)
3. This being can move this object. (because it"s almighty)
4. Step 2 and 3 contradict each other.
5. Therefore the assumed is false and an almighty being cannot exist.
6. God is almighty (Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty;walk before me, and be blameless.)
7. Therefore God cannot exist. Q.E.D.

==Debunking possible counterarguments==
Some people whom I have told this argument tried to obscure their own incompetence in making a compelling argument by saying that God doesn't have to abide the rules of logic or that we humans are too stupid to get it. This is of course nonsense because EVERYONE including so called gods have to abide to logic. But let's for arguments sake assume that God is indeed to smart for us to comprehend and doesn't have to abide to the rules of logic. In that case add these steps:

step 1 and a third: This almighty being can dumb down the universe so humans can understand it.
step 1 and two thirds: This almighty being can make sure he has to abide to the rules of logic.

If the God then is too smart for us or does not abide to the rules of logic that contradicts step 1 1/3 and/or 1 2/3 leading to the same conclusion.
Debate Round No. 2
Jerry947

Pro

Lets start by looking at my opponent's argument.

1. Assume an almighty being can exist.

Agreed...though I disagree that being almighty means that you can do what is logically impossible.

2. In this case this being can create an immovable object. (because it"s almighty)

False. God cannot do what is logically impossible. However, if he could, then he could be almighty (or all powerful) and create an immovable object that he could still move all at the same time. It doesn't make sense logically but it could happen if God could do the logically impossible.

3. This being can move this object. (because it"s almighty)

Sure...but only if God can do the logically impossible which I of course deny.

4. Step 2 and 3 contradict each other.

But since God can do the logically impossible in your view this is okay.

5. Therefore the assumed is false and an almighty being cannot exist.

Bare assertion.

6. God is almighty (Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty;walk before me, and be blameless.)

Yes, God is almighty but this doesn't mean he could do the logically impossible.

7. Therefore God cannot exist. Q.E.D.

Nope, another assertion not proved.

My opponent then says that "Some people whom I have told this argument tried to obscure their own incompetence in making a compelling argument by saying that God doesn't have to abide the rules of logic or that we humans are too stupid to get it."

I would say that God cannot do the logically impossible and I would say that humans do not fully understand God but doesn't really matter since the counter arguments don't really apply to me.

I thank my opponent for his responses and I look forward to read what he writes next.
orginelenaam

Con

1. You speak of Tacitus, but he lived 100 years after Christ supposedly lived, so that is not reliable, Talmud was also written 70-200 years after Christ. But OK a delusional guy called Jesus who said he was the son of God may have existed. That doesn't prove that he is indeed the son of God, just that he claimed to.

"Jesus was a good person and a good teacher...but you can't be these things if you are insane."
That is BS. You don't need to be smart or sane to be nice or to teach things you do understand.

".the source is reliable"

Yeah, no. Here is a list of external mistakes: http://rationalwiki.org...
And a list of internal mistakes: http://rationalwiki.org...
Some contradictions about the flood of Noah: http://rationalwiki.org...

"Since the existence of Jesus is a fact"
Maybe, but that doesn't prove he is a son of God.

" since he clearly was crucified"
No sources outside of the bible, which is clearly biased, say that.

, and since his tomb was found empty, and since people of the time period say that he rose from the dead"
Again, no reliable source says that, and even if that happened it is more likely that he managed to roll the stone away or faked his dead than that he went full on zombie mode.

3. Gospels are written by brainwashed christians, so that is clearly not a reliable source.

So to conclude, Pro gives only unreliable sources and inconclusive evidence derived from these unreliable sources and blatantly lies about the Bible being reliable.
Debate Round No. 3
Jerry947

Pro

"You speak of Tacitus, but he lived 100 years after Christ supposedly lived, so that is not reliable, Talmud was also written 70-200 years after Christ. But OK a delusional guy called Jesus who said he was the son of God may have existed. That doesn't prove that he is indeed the son of God, just that he claimed to."

Tacitus was born in 56 AD (https://en.wikipedia.org...) and Jesus died around 30-33 AD. So he did not live 100 years after Christ. The Talmud was written later like my opponent said. But since my opponent admits that Jesus may have existed (he should be convinced), my argument remains solid.

"That is BS. You don't need to be smart or sane to be nice or to teach things you do understand."

Noted, but I wasn't claiming otherwise. All I was saying was that you can't be insane and still be a good moral teacher.

My opponent then ignores my original arguments for the reliability of the Bible and then cites three Wikipedia sources to prove their point. Those sources do not disprove that the Bible is unreliable. I will address one accusation each source makes.

The first source claims that the Bible is unreliable due to the fact that the writers called a bat a bird. That is ridiculous since they merely had a different classification system than we use today.

As for the source about contradictions, those verses were just misunderstood. For example, the thing about faith and works is simple. Your faith in God is questionable if you aren't doing good works. It is kind of like a person who has a cleaning job yet doesn't actually clean anything. Christians simply need to be doing good works.

The third source about the flood was interesting. Yet here is a source that might help my opponent out: https://answersingenesis.org...

My opponent says "Maybe, but that doesn't prove he is a son of God."

Noted. I never once made an argument formed like that.

My opponent says "No sources outside of the bible, which is clearly biased, say that."

My opponent needs to support their claim about the Bible writers being biased. Also, they ignored my quote from Josephus which is a non-biblical source that proves that Jesus was crucified.

My opponent claims "Again, no reliable source says that, and even if that happened it is more likely that he managed to roll the stone away or faked his dead than that he went full on zombie mode."

You can't fake a death by crucifixion. And he was buried for three days with a guard watching his tomb. How could anyone survive that? My opponent's logic here is not at all sound.

My opponent claims that the gospels were written by brainwashed Christians. They need to back up this bare assertion.

So to conclude, my opponent ignores most of my arguments and fails to say anything that hurts my case.

Thanks for a good debate!
orginelenaam

Con

Firstly I will explain to you why the proof is correct.

1. Assume an almighty being can exist.

Agreed...though I disagree that being almighty means that you can do what is logically impossible.

There is nothing to agree about here, the proof says assume, so just assume it. Being almighty means having unlimited power, so you can do anything. There is nothing to disagree about here either because that is the meaning of the word.

2. In this case this being can create an immovable object. (because it"s almighty)

False. God cannot do what is logically impossible. However, if he could, then he could be almighty (or all powerful) and create an immovable object that he could still move all at the same time. It doesn't make sense logically but it could happen if God could do the logically impossible.

EXACTLY. That is the entire point of a proof by contradictoin: to show that assuming the opposite of a statement leads to something logically impossible. And about your statement if God could do the impossible see ==Debunking possible counterarguments== in my initial argument.

3. This being can move this object. (because it"s almighty)

Sure...but only if God can do the logically impossible which I of course deny.

Entire point of the proof.

4. Step 2 and 3 contradict each other.

But since God can do the logically impossible in your view this is okay.

NO, this is not okay. And that is why the assumed must be false and God cannot exist.

5. Therefore the assumed is false and an almighty being cannot exist.

Bare assertion.

If statement A is false because it creates logical inconsistencies statement not-A must be true. That is a fundemental of formal logic, so no, that is not an assertion.

6. God is almighty (Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty;walk before me, and be blameless.)

Yes, God is almighty but this doesn't mean he could do the logically impossible.

Again, that is the point of the proof.

7. Therefore God cannot exist. Q.E.D.

Nope, another assertion not proved.

Yes it has been proved, see the proof above it.

Now I was going to refute your arguments, but I realise I don't have to bother. Even if all you see is true that is indirect proof at best. Yes, maybe Jesus was ressurected, but that could have been done by a zombie virus or by Allah, yes maybe the Bible is reliable (execpt for the 80-3=77 arguments you have not refuted), but that doesn't mean there could be a mistake in it. My proof is mathemetically sound, there is nothing someone who has a basic understanding of proof by contradiction can say against it.

That is all I need to say about this.

Thanks for the debate, good luck etc.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by orginelenaam 5 months ago
orginelenaam
I think I have a way of explaining your "it doesn't count because God wouldn't create such an object"-argument: you cannot lick your back. You'll probably don't want to, but that doesn't mean that it is possible.
Posted by orginelenaam 5 months ago
orginelenaam
Let's assume Jesus will return to earth to punish the unfaithful.

Let him come. We'll just kill him again.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 5 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 6 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
orginelenaam;
mathmatically sound. Lie, you preseume wrongly, God is not here to entertain the foolish. God does not create what is not reasoned or required to suggest otherwise remains stupidity. Man is not the sum of all knowledge it is this fact that you do error. You nor any man can rationalized God, you have not the capacity. 2 Billion souls know that God is real, Hell is real, heaven is real (not referencing the movie of course). At present you destined the Hell for your unrepentant spirit which condemns you with each word.

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
in this God says you are fully aware of His presence by what is visible in His creation of the world: Go here: http://www.debate.org...

Do not think I am attacking you I am not I am fulfilling my obligation to you to warn you of your unrepentant ways as required by Ezekiel 3:18-19
Ezekiel 3:18 When I say to a wicked person, "You will surely die," and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for[b] their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself.
Imagine the believers that have the blood of souls accounted to us because we FAILED to warn the soul. I assure you God is most assuredly real. This is NOT about winning debates, it is about winning souls. Consider this. In 100 years what you said here IS GOING TO MATTER (emphasis) as it will in 10,000 years ut you are oblivious to this fact. Sad really. Seek God and He 'll come to you.
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: FollowerofChrist1955// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: 1.Better conduct-Point to Pro -Rational, calm, assertive confidence over con's lack of desire to consider rational paradigm. ie.... the create immovable object ... without specification of need to create such object, which itself is illogical. 2. More convincing argument-point to Pro, sources where in fact reliable, well presented and worthy of consideration. Con presents less reliable sources, as Believers are trained in the study of scripture and understand contradictions are in fact not contradictions by way of further reasoned study, where nonbelievers are less pursuit of actual concept, accepting at face value as opposed to seeking theologian assistance. 3. Most reliable sources, Points to pro, most sources provided overall- 17 total sources, Con expressed opinions without source use- total sources- 4

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct points require that a debater makes a point that directly slams their opponent or others outside of the debate, or that they forfeit a round. Certain other instances may result in a conduct point allocation, but while a lack of rationality in argumentation may inform an argument point allocation, that lack cannot inform a conduct point. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter focuses solely on sources for this point, and while that may inform this as well, the voter is still required to assess specific arguments made by both debaters and compare them based on what they say and not solely based on what backs them up.
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
(3) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter cannot make a decision on the basis of quantity alone " quality must also be assessed. Some of that explanation appears in here, but it's so general it could be applied to any debate. The voter is required to assess specific sources based on their reliability and quality to award these points.
********************************************************** **************
Posted by Ragnar 6 months ago
Ragnar
In future I suggest quotation marks around quotations, as well as clear formatting to double identify them. https://docs.google.com...
Posted by orginelenaam 6 months ago
orginelenaam
@followerofchrist

The proof is mathemetically sound. If you want a constructive discussion tell me what step is wrong in your opinion. As to your points:

1. That is because he doesn't exist at all.
2. It doesn't matter if God creates this object or not, what counts is that he can.

Then you start to 'proof' that god exists by already assuming that god exists. That is called circular reasoning and that is a fallacy.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 6 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Proof by contradiction is not the same thing as proof by stupidity.
Your thoughts are childish, and lack logic in its entirety.

1. God does not exist to entertain the dim witted.
2. God being God creates, for purpose. To even suggest that God would create a thing without purpose is infantile. What would be the need to create such an Object? To prove something to you? Nonsense, All that was created shows purpose and design.

Create an immovable object, He can't move ...... sheer stupidity, no logical thought in that at all. You must be a child!

As to Logic?
Logic is something that is clearly understood. For example;
Biologic's of every type and kind can ONLY (emphasis) reproduce by way of ovum->Fertilization->Infant-> Adult,
where as Plants of every type and Kind require Seed-> germnation-> Plant. Logic PROVES (emphasis) that reproduction cannot occur any other way naturally!

Logic states that in order to obtain an Ovum or Seed, there must be an adult specimen existent with which to obtain it! Logically speaking after myriads of FAILED (emphasis) experiments which have produced NO (emphasis) results of a real living breathing animal the ONLY (emphasis) logical conclusion is the creation story, it is the only one which answers all logical questions.

1. God states he created first animals, types and kinds, to begin reproduction
2. God creates Plants and specifies that they carry their own seed to reproduce
3. God creates man and woman blessing them and commanding they multiply! Done

Dumb Down- Is to believe Darwinism without a single living specimen (Real photograph) which shows conclusively that life could be produced ANY OTHER WAY other than ovum or seed(emphasis).
PLEASE NO REPORTS? Show us a picture of a real animal created by any of the methods Science literature CLAIMS!
You won't find one, cause they don't exist-no drawings please.
No votes have been placed for this debate.