Does the Christian God Exist?
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
-Pro gives definitions and sets up debate
-Con accepts the debate (acceptance only).
-Pro gives opening argument
-Con gives opening argument...no rebuttals.
-Pro responds to what Con argued
-Con responds to what Pro argued
-Both debaters conclude their arguments and finish responding to what each other wrote.
Christian God-The God described by the Bible.
Exist-have objective reality or being (https://www.google.com......).
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."
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
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.
In this round I will demonstrate the complete inability for arguments that assert the existence of Jesus to establish in any degree the existence of the christian god. I will then explain how the weight of evidence for supernatural claims supercedes the amount of evidence that could possibly support such a claim (in other words, why proving the existence of a god is always impossible). The case is as follows:
R1 >The existence of Jesus in relation to this debate
R1.1: Jesus is not the christian god as defined by the bible
R1.2: The existence of Jesus does not in any way support the idea that the christian god exists
R1.3: There is insufficient evidence to believe the ressurection occurred
R1.4: There are supernatural claims by the bible that have been falsified, but none verified
R2 >The use of the bible in this debate
R2.1: Political and geographical accuracy in the bible reflects the fact that it was written 2000 years ago, not that it is correct.
R2.2: The bible claims that Jesus is a part of the godhead, but does not give any reason to believe it.
R2.3: Claims of supernatural events are present in every religion, not just christianity
A1 >The weight of evidence for supernatural claims
A1.1: The rational individual's decision
A1.2: Why supernatural claims must always be rejected
R1.1) The Christian god is defined by the bible as being a trinity of three entities. Father/son/spirit . Tellingly, Jesus is not the christian god as defined by the bible. Pro needs to correct this definition, and not only prove that Jesus is divine, and that Jesus is a part of a god head, but that the other aspects of the god head exist as well. Given that the bible itself demands that this be accepted by faith alone , there is no possible way that Pro can give a convincing argument for the existence of God based on the bible. He points to the bible, but the bible says "he must believe that He exists," and nothing more. The bible does not even attempt to convince the reader that god exists. It demands faith instead. Therefore Pro does not have a case, given his only argument is entirely based on the bible's teachings.
R1.2) The existence of Jesus is completely irrelevant to the existence of god. I could quite convincingly argue that we don't have sufficient reason to say that Jesus even existed, however this is a moot point altogether as even if I do accept that Jesus existed, it says nothing about the existence of God. A famous teacher gathered followers to his philosophy 2000 years ago. That's not the first time it happened, and it wasn't to be the last either. For sake of argument, a man named Jesus rose to fame 2000 years ago before being killed. His teachings live on in a religion named after him. There is no argument for the existence of God here. It's the equivalent of saying that the existence of Mohammed the prophet necessitates the existence of Allah. If Pro disagrees with this (he does) then he understands the fault in his own logic.
R1.3) The ressurection is not documented outside the bible, so it is difficult to align this with the many other claims that the bible makes. We know for a fact however that dead people whose deaths have been verified by Roman soldier's after an execution and who have been buried for 3 days do not come back to life and roll away an immensely heavy grave stone. Not surprisingly, the christians call this miraculous event exactly that -a miraculous act of god. There is as much credit to these claims as the belief that crops require prayers to grow, which Pro clearly doesn't believe.
R1.4) Supernatural claims by the bible are simply not to be believed. The bible claimed that the earth and all it's life was miraculously created in 6 days. However, the development of dating methods has since proven this to be false. The bible also claimed that there was a genetic bottleneck due to a major flood that localised every species to a single location only several thousand years ago. However, every continent, including geopgrahically isolated continents such as Australia and the Americas is fully populated with an ecosystem showing no signs of genetic bottleneck. Furthermore, they are full of so many diverse species in their millions that they would not be able to all fit into an ark of the size described by the bible. How then did all these animals appear in such isolated parts of the world? The answer is that they were always there. There hasn't been a recent global flood that wiped out everything except for 2 of each species in a single location in the middle east. The authors of the bible were simply retelling an apocalyptic tale that appears in many ancient cultures and predates the supposed time of the great flood. Since we know that there is no truth in the miraculous claims by the bible, why are we compelled to accept them as true? Another question is why should we accept miraculous claims by the bible as true, but reject every claim by every other religious book? The Pro case is irrational on a major scale.
R2.1) Pro claims that we must accept the bible as being correct because it has high geographical and political accuracy. He fails to mention that the Quran also has high historical accuracy. In fact, every ancient text makes many accurate claims about the time it was written in. Obviously because it was written close to the time that the events it describes occurred. If I wrote a book that detailed how Obama won the elections and how terrorists attacked the US on Sept. 11 2001 and then claimed that the twin towers were brought down by directed energy weapons and that Obama was the anti-christ, would you think that I'm credible? According to Pro, yes I would be credible, because I made accurate claims. The major flaw in his logic is that this is completely non sequitur. A book that makes accurate claims about the time it was written does not become automatically correct in every claim that it makes. If this were the case, then every religious book would be undeniably true, because every ancient religious book makes reference to historical events that occurred at the time. Pro however only believes the bible, as the existence of other gods described by other holy books would prove that the bible is wrong in claiming that only the christian god exists.
R2.2) With this in mind, why should we believe that Jesus is a part of a god head? Why should we believe that Jesus is divine? We have established that we cannot accept such a conclusion based upon the fact that the bible asserts that this is the case. There is no reason a rational individual would reach this conclusion. Every religion claims that their holy prophet is divine, none of them give us any reason to compel us to believe such claims.
R2.3) If an ancient teaching which had espoused many true claims commanded people to sacrifice humans to the sun for prosperity, would you believe it? No. Except that's the Aztec religion for you. Their heiroglyphics accurately depicted the heavens as viewed from Earth. Pro's logic would force everyone to accept that because of this accuracy, the Aztecs are correct in claiming that we ought to sacrifice humans to the sun. Claims of supernatural events are present in every religion, not just christianity. So why should we believe christianities miraculous claims and toss out every other? Not only is it inconsistent to believe, it's logically moronic.
A1.1) Profundity of a statement entails a larger demand for evidence to support it. If I suggested that there is a car parked outside your house this very moment, you wouldn't really be surprised if it turned out to be the case, and might even take my word for without seeing the evidence for yourself. As a claim gets more profound, the demand for evidence increases as well. Let's say there's a ferrari parked outside your house right now. This time you would probably want to peek out the window to verify the claim. So what about claims such as 'gods exist, unicorns exist, fairies, elves etc?' The profoundness of these statements are so significant that they actually cross a certain threshold. This point is the line drawn between falsifiable statements, and non falsifiable statements. In other words, what can be discovered by us, and what cannot be discovered. All claims that are verifiable have a finite burden of proof. If a claim is so absurd that it is no longer verifiable, (Russel's teapot) the demand for evidence becomes infinitely high. This is because no amount of evidence can falsify a non falsifiable statement. Likewise, no amount of evidence can validate a non falsifiable statement. By definition non falsifiable statements remain outside the scope of knowability. Epistemology knows no ways to determine the truth value of a non falsifiable statement. In terms of this debate, Pro is attempting to suggest that there is evidence to support the belief in the christian god. Not only that, he is outright claiming that he can prove the christian god exists. Unfortunately, the demand for evidence is infinitely high, and inherently impossible to meet. Thus, Pro cannot and will not be able to meet the requirements he set for himself in this debate. A non falsifiable statement such as 'The christian god exists,' simply cannot be proven.
A1.2) Humans automatically reject absurb claims. Christians are no exception. If I told a christian that rivers were created by rainbow serpents many years ago, they would simply reject the claim as outlandish. However, claims that the christian god exist are outlandish for the same reason, and both claims fail to satisfy the demand for evidence required to adequately demonstrate their existence.
Pro has entered this debate in the belief that the bible is all it takes to categorically demonstrate the existence of God. Not only have I demonstrated that the bible claims it doesn't do this, I have shown why the bible can't do this and why God simply cannot be proven at all.
 John 1:1
 Hebrews 11:6
"Tellingly, Jesus is not the christian god as defined by the bible. Pro needs to correct this definition, and not only prove that Jesus is divine, and that Jesus is a part of a god head, but that the other aspects of the god head exist as well."
Jesus is the Christian God as I defined earlier. Who exactly does my opponent thinks that Christians worship? And I do not need to give a separate argument for each member of the trinity. All three are one and if I prove the existence of one of them then I also prove all three.
Jesus is divine because:
Is Called God-John 1:1,18; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1.
Has the names and titles of God-The Lord (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21), I AM (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58), and Savior (Isaiah 43:11; Titus 2:13).
Has Attributes of God-Omnipresence (Matthew 18:20; 28:26), Immutable (Hebrews 13:8), Eternal (John 8:58), Omnipotence (John 11:38-44; Matthew 28: 18-22), and Omniscience (Matthew 16:21; John 4:28; 11:17).
Did Works of God-Creating/Sustaining (John 1:3,10; Hebrews 1:2, 3; Colossians 1:15-17), Forgiveness/healing (Isaiah 29:18; Mark 2:1-12), and Calming the Storm (Psalm 107:28-29; Matthew 8: 23-27).
Is Due Honor and Worship-John 5:22-30; 20:28
"Given that the bible itself demands that this be accepted by faith alone."
It wasn't talking about blind faith. Faith in God is based on evidence. And the evidence of the Resurrection is a great reason to have faith in God.
"The bible does not even attempt to convince the reader that god exists."
Really? Then why are the gospel writers tying to convince their readers that Jesus is fully God?
"The existence of Jesus is completely irrelevant to the existence of god"
No it is not. This debate is about whether Jesus is god and if he exists. I first have to show that Jesus existed in order to show that he raised from the dead.
"I could quite convincingly argue that we don't have sufficient reason to say that Jesus even existed"
Go ahead and try to do that.
"For sake of argument, a man named Jesus rose to fame 2000 years ago before being killed. His teachings live on in a religion named after him. There is no argument for the existence of God here."
I never said that because Jesus existed...therefore God exists.
"The ressurection is not documented outside the bible, so it is difficult to align this with the many other claims that the bible makes."
Why does it have to? The Bible is composed of different peoples' accounts about Jesus. We have eye-witnesses and family members of Jesus and etc...that all say that Jesus was God. Why does my opponent need more accounts than the ones we already have in order to be convinced?
"We know for a fact however that dead people whose deaths have been verified by Roman soldier's after an execution and who have been buried for 3 days do not come back to life and roll away an immensely heavy grave stone."
We know that this usually happens but the people of the time period say that Jesus rose from the dead. Why does Con disagree with them?
"Not surprisingly, the christians call this miraculous event exactly that -a miraculous act of god. There is as much credit to these claims as the belief that crops require prayers to grow, which Pro clearly doesn't believe."
No, the claim of the resurrection is supported by eye-witness accounts. The claim about crops is something that no one makes.
"Supernatural claims by the bible are simply not to be believed. The bible claimed that the earth and all it's life was miraculously created in 6 days."
First part is a bare assertion and the second part has nothing to do with the existence of the Christian God.
"However, the development of dating methods has since proven this to be false."
The Bible does not specifically argue for a young earth and dating methods make certain assumptions. I don't really want to talk about this though since it is off topic.
"However, every continent, including geopgrahically isolated continents such as Australia and the Americas is fully populated with an ecosystem showing no signs of genetic bottleneck."
It has also been several thousands of years since the flood happened.
"Another question is why should we accept miraculous claims by the bible as true, but reject every claim by every other religious book?"
Because the claims of other religious books can't be supported like the Bibles can. But my opponent should feel free to defend other religious texts if they want to. Though again, it isn't really apart of the debate.
"He fails to mention that the Quran also has high historical accuracy."
The Qur'an has historical claims that have been proven to be false. For example, it claims that Jesus wasn't crucified but that is obvious incorrect as I have already shown.
"If I wrote a book that detailed how Obama won the elections and how terrorists attacked the US on Sept. 11 2001 and then claimed that the twin towers were brought down by directed energy weapons and that Obama was the anti-christ, would you think that I'm credible?"
It would depend if other witnesses agree with you and it would depend on how critics responded to your claims. The Bible sources all agreed with each other.
"A book that makes accurate claims about the time it was written does not become automatically correct in every claim that it makes."
No, but it gives way more reasons to accept that the book is historically correct. And there is the fact that the Bible has never been proven to be false.
"If this were the case, then every religious book would be undeniably true, because every ancient religious book makes reference to historical events that occurred at the time."
No, other religious texts do make false claims and are at many times unreliable since they were written much later than the events originally happened.
"Pro's logic would force everyone to accept that because of this accuracy, the Aztecs are correct in claiming that we ought to sacrifice humans to the sun. Claims of supernatural events are present in every religion, not just christianity. So why should we believe christianities miraculous claims and toss out every other?"
My logic does no such thing and we should believe Christianity since we have actual eyewitnesses that say that Jesus is God and that he did in fact rise from the dead.
"Unfortunately, the demand for evidence is infinitely high, and inherently impossible to meet. Thus, Pro cannot and will not be able to meet the requirements he set for himself in this debate. A non falsifiable statement such as 'The christian god exists,' simply cannot be proven."
My claim that the Christian God does exist can be disprove if my opponent can prove that he stayed in his grave when he died. Extraordinary evidence is not needed to prove the supernatural. Evidence is evidence no matter what.
"If I told a christian that rivers were created by rainbow serpents many years ago, they would simply reject the claim as outlandish."
Yes, but only because you would have no evidence to support your claim.
"However, claims that the christian god exist are outlandish for the same reason, and both claims fail to satisfy the demand for evidence required to adequately demonstrate their existence."
No, Christians do have evidence for their God and I have already provided that. My opponent can feel free to present their case for rainbow serpents if they wish to do so.
"Pro has entered this debate in the belief that the bible is all it takes to categorically demonstrate the existence of God."
Yes, that is correct. I don't think that is the only evidence but that is the evidence I am using right now.
I'd like to suggest to my opponent that he adopt a style of response called thematic rebuttal. Instead of quoting sentences from random parts of my essay and disagreeing with them, encapsulate the entire premise that those sentences were supporting and attempt to demonstrate why that idea is incorrect. In this round I will be defending the idea that there is insufficient evidence to accept the Christian God and further demonstrating the inability for the pro case to substantiate the resolution.
In the previous round, I demonstrated that we are unable to ascertain if Jesus was divine or not, and that because we couldn't do this, we are forced to reject the claim. I further justified this by pointing out that Pro refuses to accept claims of divinity from other religions, but paradoxically accepts divinity from the christian religion, despite all these religions providing the same quality of evidence. Each major ancient religion makes claims about the geography and politics of the time. Pro cited this as evidence that the bible is correct. However, if this logic is correct, then every holy book is correct, not just the bible. However, the bible explicitly asserts that no other religion is correct . Therefore Pro has failed to show that there is a reason to accept the bible, but not every other holy book.
Pro makes some vague assertions that Jesus is God in his second round. Tellingly he has still failed to introduce any reason to accept validity from the claim that the existence of Jesus proves the existence of the Christian God. On the subject of evidences, the best available evidence for the existence of Jesus is by far the bible itself. Secondary sources were written hundreds of years afterwards and by people with no real way of assessing the evidence themselves. That's a major problem, the bible is the one claiming miraculous deeds from a person that only it can adquately assert exists. Since clearly the bible is not a neutral source, there is literally not a single objective piece of evidence for Jesus existing.
Not only are we unable to show that Jesus existed, we certainly can't show that he is God. Again, Pro has failed to address the argument that all religious holy books make true claims. Just because a book has many accurate statements about the relative position of Jerusalem from Jericho does not make it correct in claiming that fairies collect your teeth at night, or that every living species was virtually eliminated only 4 thousand years ago in an apocalyptic scale flood. We had might as well accept that Mohammad is a greater prophet than Jesus, simply because the Quran asserts it.
On the matter of evidence, I showed last round why Pro actually has none. 'Evidence' in the sense that we are using it is mentioned exactly 1 time in the entire bible.
"Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  In the context of the passage, the writer of Hebrews was explaining how faith was essential for salvation and how many of the patriarches had been faithful. The bible equates faith with evidence and demands that the reader have faith in the existence of God.
"For without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to the Father must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him."
If Pro believes the bible, then he believes that the evidence he is demanded to produce is faith. Not deductions, observations or scientifically established conclusions. The bible clearly attempts to convince the reader that the evidence for God is the faith that he exists.
The resurrection never happened. Pro did not reply to my argument that claims of miracles simply cannot be believed due to every holy book making them. There are a few arguments I've used which have cited the fact that similar claims can be found in many ancient religions to reject the belief in all of them. Why do we make an exception for christianity? We don't. Furthermore, the bible as a source is collection of writings that attempt to assert a certain point of view. If we want to objectively analyse that point of view, we can't go to the bible. It's like if a child comes screaming that there are unicorns chasing him, what do we do? Find evidence of the unicorn or take the child at his word? The bible makes a lot of claims which, like every religion, are really difficult to believe. Therefore obviously we need evidence which is external to the bible to know if the supernatural stuff in the bible actually happened. Anticipating that my opponent will reply with "The bible makes a lot of true claims." No. I've already responded to this and am still waiting for a reply so I don't want to see it in response to this as well.
Last round I also posited that there are stories in the bible that simply and flatly could not happen. The flood for example killed every living thing except for two of each, and ignoring the fact that the ark in the bible couldn't hold all these millions of animals, every survivor on earth was relocated to mount Ararat, according to the Genesis account.  From this location, it is impossible for any animal species except for some birds to reach North America, South America, Australia, Antarctica and the pacific islands. However, we see these continents and isolated islands populated will full and stable ecosystems. There's no possible way for all these millions of species to cross such vast exapnses of Ocean. Simply, the bible contains stories which didn't actually happen, and claims the existence of eye witnesses as evidence which Pro cites.
Pro makes a feeble attempt to justify why christianity should be believed but all others rejected: "The Qur'an has historical claims that have been proven to be false. For example, it claims that Jesus wasn't crucified but that is obvious incorrect as I have already shown." and "Because the claims of other religious books can't be supported like the Bibles can."
The first claim is circular, the evidence Pro gave for the crucifixion was the fact that the bible reports it. However we're discussion why everything is wrong except for the bible, and Pro is effectively arguing that everything is wrong except for the bible, because the bible says so. The second claim is a bare assertion, we know that there is nothing different about the bible from the Quran. All the scriptures that can be tested relate to geographical or political claims, both these books make them, and both of them make quite a few correct claims about the political climates at the times they were written in.
Last round I made the case that the weight of evidence to prove the existence of the supernatural cannot possibly be fulfilled. Claiming that there are eye witnesses to the resurrection because the bible says so is at best very weak evidence, and as I've shown not evidence at all. We don't know if the bible's claims of eyewitnesses are anything more than the hearsay Pro claims every other religious book is spouting. Therefore Pro has not been successful in providing evidence to believe in the supernatural.
My case also made it clear that the most reasonable position is by default to reject claims of absurdity. The BoP is automatically fulfilled by Con simply by not being able to be convinced of a different position. The idea that there is a Christian god is rejected automatically, such as with claims like 'invisible aliens are probing your thoughts.' Such claims are not falsifiable, thus it is impossible to have a BoP to disprove them. They are simply labelled absurd. The christian god is one such absurd claim, and Pro has unfortunately not been able to give a single reason to validate a belief in his existence.
 Hebrews 11:6
1. Is Jesus Divine or not?
a. My opponent ignores my Biblical argument (I used outside sources as well) and then merely asserts that we can't tell if Jesus was divine or not. So much for all the references I found and all of the arguments I have spent time researching. My opponent thinks that her bare assertions refute the claims I make.
b. My opponent then says that their claim is justified since I do not accept claims that other religions make. This logic is absurd and again, she ignored everything I wrote. I showed for example that other religions have made false claims and that there are good reasons to reject other religions. But aside from that, this is all one big red herring since we are not discussing other religions but we are discussing Christianity. So my opponent has really not properly addressed my arguments.
c. My opponent again asserts that I have "has failed to show that there is a reason to accept the bible, but not every other holy book." Again, I don't have to give reasons to reject other holy books (although I did) since I am only interested in proving that the Christian God exists.
d. My opponent then says that "Pro makes some vague assertions that Jesus is God in his second round. Tellingly he has still failed to introduce any reason to accept validity from the claim that the existence of Jesus proves the existence of the Christian God."
This is ridiculous. My argument isn't that "a man named Jesus existed...therefore God exists." My point was just to show that Jesus existed. I can't prove he rose from the dead unless I establish that he was an actual person first. And none of my claims were vague. I gave a well thought out response and my opponent ignored it.
e. My opponent states "Since clearly the bible is not a neutral source, there is literally not a single objective piece of evidence for Jesus existing."
That also makes no sense. I have family members that I am close with, does that mean I can't be an objective source when it comes to their existence?
f. My opponent then states that we can't show that Jesus existed. This is the same bare assertion they have made every single round thus far. Yet they never even try to support it. I gave a powerful argument for his existence and it like every other argument I have made has been ignored.
2. Faith and Evidence
a. My opponent brings up Bible verses about faith. They drop my points about faith not being blind. Biblical faith is based on evidence. That is why Paul taught Christians to demolish arguments. So my opponent does not have an argument here.
b. My opponent asserts again that we can dismiss the Bible's miracles since other holy books mention them. How is that logically sound at all? Why does the fact that another book mentions miracles disprove the Bible? The burden of proof is on my opponent since he made that claim.
c. My opponent writes that "It's like if a child comes screaming that there are unicorns chasing him, what do we do? Find evidence of the unicorn or take the child at his word? The bible makes a lot of claims which, like every religion, are really difficult to believe."
The gospel writers were adult Jewish men. Not delusional children. If my opponent wants to try to argue that the men were delusional, they may feel free to do so. But it is their job to prove that. And the claims of the Bible aren't hard to believe. Over 90% of the world has always believed in a God and all of them believed that their God could do supernatural things. It is only hard for my opponent to believe the Bible because of their own presuppositions.
d. My opponent claims that "we need evidence which is external to the bible to know if the supernatural stuff in the bible actually happened."
No, that makes no sense at all. More accounts outside of the ones we already have wouldn't convince my opponent of anything. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and etc...all wrote their accounts and they were later combined into one book. Why would more accounts that say the same thing change my opponent's mind? It all comes down to one fact, if you can't get past your own presupposition, then you will reject truth sometimes.
e. My opponent then starts to talk about Noah's flood. Here is a link that addresses some issues my opponent brings up: https://answersingenesis.org...
As a side note, the Bible doesn't say how many animals were taken on the ark. So it is unfair for my opponent to say that the ark took in millions of animals. The Bible does mentions that it took in two of every kind of animal, but that doesn't have to be millions since there most likely wasn't hundreds of breeds of every single animal like there are today. But besides, when you accept the existence of a God, a flood would be child's play for him.
f. My opponent claims that my claim about Jesus being crucified is circular. This is false. I already cited Josephus who also stated that Jesus was crucified and the Bible only supports that claim. In other words, the Bible supports my claim that Jesus was crucified. The Qur'an (written 400 years after the fact) was 100% wrong when it stated that Jesus was not crucified and I have shown that. As for me making a bare assertion about the Bibles reliability, my opponent still fails to understand that I don't have to talk about other religions in this debate. If they want to defend the reliability of other holy texts, then can waste time on that in their last round. My claim about the Bible being reliable was however supported in my opening argument.
3. My Opponent's Arguments
a. My opponent asserts that "claiming that there are eye witnesses to the resurrection because the bible says so is at best very weak evidence." But that is all that it is...an assertion. Eye witnesses are used in courts all the time to prove things so I am surprised that my opponent would dismiss them so quickly.
b. The burden of proof is equal in this debate and them not being convinced of a position doesn't matter. And like I said, the claim about the Christian God existing is falsifiable. All my opponent has to do is prove that Jesus stayed in his grave and that the people of time period were wrong (which I think is absurd).
Jerry's Prison (From which he cannot escape):
In this debate, I presented the case that it was impossible to provide evidence for a non-falsifiable statement. Such statements, such as the existence of gods cannot be investigated and thus cannot be known. Even if you were to see an act of god occur before your eyes, you would still be forced to reject the miraculous explanation. Pro has failed to realise this as he again asserted last round that eye witnesses from the biblical account categorically prove that god exists.
Unfortunately, for Pro to satisfy his Burden of proof, he would require all of the following:
1) The existence of evidence so strong, disputing this evidence would equate to doubting a fundamental mathematical law.
2) The availability of said evidence, in such quantities that doubting it's existence would equate to doubting a fundamental mathematical law
3) The rigidity of said evidence, such that it's existence cannot possibly be interpreted as anything else.
What this means is that the claim for the existence of god and every other non falsifiable claim requires proof so strong that it equates to fundamental logical laws. The reason why was explained earlier. Epistemology does not and cannot deal with unknowable claims, hence for an unknowable claim to become known, it's existence would necessarily need to be logically necessary. There is nothing logically necessary about anything which Pro has given in this debate. Eye-witnesses are not sufficient evidence for the existence of god. There have been countless eye witnesses for UFO's that later turned out to be mistaken. Not only are eye witnesses weak evidence for high magnitude claims, there remains insufficient evidence that anyone was actually an eye-witness. However, like every religion, whatever self-proclaimed eye witness pops up is sure to be as deluded as every other religious eye witness that Pro doesn't agree with. Such as Eye-witnesses from Islam, who claim that Mohammad was divine.
On Biblical 'Evidence'
My opponent claimed that he was fustrated that I didn't specifically address all his bible quotes telling about how Jesus is Lord etc. I am equally dismayed that he failed to defend the bible from my arguments about how we have no reason to believe the bible. Tellingly, he dismisses my very valid case as "bare assertions." To be clear, you the reader are perfectly aware as to why these 'assertions' severely undermine his entire case, let me reiterate them:
>Pro claimed that the bible was true because it made many historically accurate claims
>I explained that every ancient religious text makes accurately historical claims, thus this isn't a reason to believe the bible
>Pro claimed in reply that all other religious books were wrong.
>I explained that the bible is wrong for the same reason
>Pro dismisses my argument as "bare assertions."
To quote Pro:
"My opponent then says that their claim is justified since I do not accept claims that other religions make."
"I showed for example that other religions have made false claims and that there are good reasons to reject other religions."
I showed that the bible made false claims too, such as the claim that there was a cataclysmic near mass extinction of every species on earth that caused massive genetic bottlenecking and localisaing of every animal into one location only several thousand years ago. Since Pro ignored this point, he concedes that the bible is as fabricated as every other religious text.
There is no red herring in bringing other religions into this debate. I have shown why Pro's claims are not different to all the thousands of other religious claims of divinity. He literally does not have a case.
Did not happen. As I've demonstrated earlier, the quality of evidence that is the bible is non existent. The bible claims there were people who saw Jesus rise from the dead and ascend into heaven, the Quran says that mohammad saw Allah's angel giving him his instructions. Pro continues to fail to realise that his evidence is intrinsically similar to the 'evidence' supplied by virtually all religions. Pro in this debate has been more interested in showing that Jesus existed. I've been arguing in this debate that the existence of Jesus is irrelevant to the existence of God, and that there is an utter lack of reason to believe in a resurrection.
Lies and Fallacies:
If you've been reading this debate up to this point, you'd undoubtedly have seen many arguments by Pro that make you want to bash your own head in. Take this response for instance:
"And the claims of the Bible aren't hard to believe. Over 90% of the world has always believed in a God and all of them believed that their God could do supernatural things. It is only hard for my opponent to believe the Bible because of their own presuppositions."
I won't really address points like these, in the belief that readers of this debate are fair minded and rational enough for me to simply point them out.
"The Bible does mentions that it took in two of every kind of animal, but that doesn't have to be millions since there most likely wasn't hundreds of breeds of every single animal like there are today. But besides, when you accept the existence of a God, a flood would be child's play for him."
This one was an attempt to justify the great flood, although he ignored my argument that it's physically impossible for almost every animal and inset to traverse the oceans to completely repopulate isolated continents such as America, Australia, Antarctica, Greenland, the Pacific Islands, etc. Also, for this specific argument to work, new species would need to evolve out of the few that were on the ark in several thousand years in order to create the diversity of millions of species that we see today.
"The Qur'an (written 400 years after the fact) was 100% wrong when it stated that Jesus was not crucified and I have shown that."
Are you curious as to what Pro actually said against the Quran?
"The Qur'an has historical claims that have been proven to be false. For example, it claims that Jesus wasn't crucified but that is obvious incorrect as I have already shown."
Pro has actually stated that he believes mentioning other religions in this debate is 'off-topic' so he hasn't said anything more about it. Unfortunately, this simply means that Pro is unable to defend the bible from many of my arguments that equate it with the Quran.
An Easy Burden of Proof:
Con in this debate simply has to show that the christian god doesn't exist. I've used several arguments to obtain this goal easily. I've shown how:
1) Non falsifiable claims remain outside the scope of things that can be known and thus cannot be believed, let alone proven.
2) No amount of evidence can possibly exist to satisfy a claim that requires an infinite amount of evidence to support.
3) No amount of evidence can satisfy the claim that Pro is attempting to assert
The Ultimate Conclusion:
There is nothing that Pro could say that could demonstrate the existence of god. There are thousands, likely tens to hundreds of thousands of people who claim to be eye-witnesses of UFO's. However, UFOs still remain in the category of unicrons, fairies and gods due to their unverifiable, untestable nature. No amount of biblical quotes could prove god. No amount of people claiming they saw Jesus ascend to heaven could prove god.
Not only that, but I have been quite meticulous in showing that the evidences that Pro attempted to cite were themselves unbelievable. The bible is not different to the Quran. I've shown how the bible has made miraculous claims which have been proven false just like the Quran and all the other religions out there.
Pro has quite clearly been unable to argue in favour of a god, let alone the christian god.
The negative case wins.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.