Does the Christian God exist
Debate Rounds (3)
2nd round arguments
3rd round rebuttals and conclusions
I always enjoy this kind of debates.
Since the Instigator is Pro, I assume he takes the Burdain of Proof.
I will show that any arguments for the existence of the Christian God are irrelevant and that there is no reason to believe this god exists. My reasoning is founded in agnosticism. If the Christian God exists, there is no evidence for it and no way to prove it.
So bring on the arguments, Pro.
This is my argument I look forward to your disproving of this evedence
Wow! I was preparing some strong rebuttals, but it looks like I have to limit my arguments somehow.
Pro has evoked some stories from the bible. That's it. He consideres those stories as evidence for the existence of the Christian God.
1. ARGUMENT AGAINST ACCURACY: There exists no such definitive thing as THE BIBLE. What stands for THE BIBLE is in fact a number of translations and adaptations from some ancient texts. There are numerous verions of THE BIBLE in use right now. All of these are translations of previous texts which in turn were translations of older texts. With every translation, the stories have been changed either due to the ignorance of the translator of intentionally to fit some purpose. It is not certain how much from what we read now in our bibles was actually written in the initial version.
2. ARGUMENT AGAINST VERIDICITY: Even if we were to find the actual original texts of the bible, there is no reason to think that the depicted stories actually happened. Maybe the writers just missunderstood the events that they were recording. If I write a book now that the illusionist David Blaine can levitate, it doesn't prove that he truly does levitate. Even if I am an eye witness, this still doesn't mean that he actually levitates, but merely that I have seen something that I cannot understand. Almost all other ancient religoius books such those about the Olympian gods have been discarded as myths.
The bible is just a collection of stories. It cannot be used as evidence because most of its contents cannot be verified.
2. Your basis of agnosticism is that all claims can't be true but how do you know your claim is true and your argument is true how do you know
3. Yes there are many versions of the bible right now but they all say the same thing that God is the one true God
4. We can because I have witnessed a miracle myself a deaf man spoke clearly so I am an eye witness and I understand what happened
1. I did not give up on anything. I merely limited my argument to disproving your claim that the bible is trustworthy. You attempt to prove that the bible id "a viable place of information" based on the fact that some of it is true.
I agree that some claims from the bible have been verified. Egypt, the Roman Empire, a lot of the cities and towns have been attested by numerous other sources. Influential people, like emperors and other leaders are historical figures. These things are not that difficult to believe as they are correlated with other things that we assume about that period.
And here is the key: the more information we can find about particular people, places or events, the more likely it is that we are discovering true facts about them. However, extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence that there was anything godly about Jesus. There is no other evidence about his miracles besides what we know from the bible. The bible stands on its own for these claims so they may easily be just fantasy tales.
The fact that part of a book is true does not validate the whole book. There is a novel called "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter". The fact that Abraham Lincoln existed does not prove that the rest of the book " is a viable place of information".
2. Agnosticism does not mean that no claim can be true. My view is that you can never prove the existence of a metaphysical god because you cannot produce any evidence. In simple terms: you cannot prove that miracles are miracles. They may be perfectly explicable natural events that we don't fully understand. You can't show the god's involvement in these miracles.
3. A lot of version disagree about particular things. And even if they say that "God is the one true God" they're still just books. I mean, the Coran probably says the same thing about Allah. If it's written, doesn't mean it's true.
4. You think you've witnessed a miracle. Deaf people can speak, some of them speak clearly. If you're an eye witness does not mean that you understand. Also, the fact that you state it does not mean that you're saying the truth. I can tell you that I've seen an alien. It was running in my back yard and it was green. Do you believe me? You need to back up your claims about miracles and aliens if we want people to believe. Otherwise we're just telling some stories that do not prove anything. Also I might be wrong about the alien: maybe it was a green bag drifting in the wind.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: No sources were cited by any of the debaters, Pro only made Assumptions that a book is truthful without actually demonstrating why it is True. Con provided valid reasons why the book Pro cites as True is quite likely untrue, yet Pro agrees with some of Con's statements thus siding with Con, and simply disagrees without showing any valid reasons for the disagreement, except a personal experience that may very well be simply a Hallucination, or a deception like a man pretending to be deaf or maybe late onset deafness that would not affect the ability to talk, which developed while hearing existed. Personal anecdotes are Evidence of Nothing, without corroborative evidence to add verification.
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.