The Instigator
Ariesz
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
GoOrDin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Does the Christian God exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Ariesz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 480 times Debate No: 90312
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (1)

 

Ariesz

Pro

Round 1-Acceptance, Round 2-Cases, Round 3-Rebutalls, Round 4-Defense
I will be arguing that God does not exist, while my opponent defends the view of a God existing.
GoOrDin

Con

Aright I have postponed enough.
The Debate IS that "the Christian God is real" and I am PRO, and my opponent is PRO "the Christian GOD is not real" if this were a debate. BUT it is NOT. My opponent as asked that I present the material to prove the Christian God, there is not a debate here, and I will burn any troll conduct that I am presented with, with very vulgar and pointed denunciation.

will begin by accepting this debate with a clause which will be addressed as a question ~
When reflecting upon the existence and nature of God, in your personal time - do you question God { IN doing so are you, asking God to actually reply to you or demonstrate himself to you, thus Anointing you his Prophet } < We must always consider the current world affairs when stipulating over any situation, and while trying to reach an accord with God, you cannot suddenly discontinue all worldly things and continue to refer to your role in the mortal world without blatantly being impudent and out-of-place > ( During the conduct of asking God to prove to you his existence: Did you come tot he conclusion that You, "questioned him" because There are adulterers and criminals on the face of the planet, social injustice and disease* so that you demonstrated that you only considered his person unreasonable not because It was his existence that was questionable but because you personally have not Accounted for the causes of Human sacrilege) }?

If so, than I can ask you if this was the full extent of your personal attempts to reach God [did you stop trying after complaining to God that there were sinners*] & in addition what effort did you actually put into finding God?

I can assert that through these two questions alone I will have provided enough evidence against you, If you're honest to suggest that you are unqualified {have not put effort into contemplating evidence}. This is significant to the "debate" because, 'How can you assert there is No Hippopotamus (God) simply because you have not seen it, and believe it to be a rumor. Sure you may not be able to see it, from Where you are looking, to where you are looking. {Where is Waldo? I cannot see him. He must not be on this page.}"

The content to Prove that the Christian God is abundant, and I hope to share that will you in the Case round. SO please prepare your Round two sufficiently and answer both my questions.
Debate Round No. 1
Ariesz

Pro

I would like to first thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I did not expect my opponent to start asking questions in the acceptance round. Though, I will answer these questions for the sake of proving my point that the Christian God does not exist.
Questions:
"When reflecting upon the existence and nature of God, in your personal time - do you question God { IN doing so are you, asking God to actually reply to you or demonstrate himself to you, thus Anointing you his Prophet"
I have asked God to one time reply to me. He did not do anything to reply to me. I would understand that if God existed, than he would probably have bigger plans ahead, or is doing something else more significant. But, I now know that the Christian God does not exist. In that state of my life, I was talking to no-one.
-------------------------
"During the conduct of asking God to prove to you his existence: Did you come tot he conclusion that You, "questioned him" because There are adulterers and criminals on the face of the planet, social injustice and disease"
There are an abundant amount of reasons why I would question God. My opponent thinks that I have brought this reason down to one. No, I have a disbelief in the Christin God, because all of the other religions in the world. Just by examining empirical evidence, one can see that the religion an individual is born in is definitely going to be that individual's religion. My opponent could claim that there are converts, but a conversion to another religion is highly unlikely. There are adulterers and criminals on this planet. There is social injustice and disease on this planet. Since God is everywhere at once; he is watching all of this happen. Christians will usually claim that God is testing those criminals. I find this point very weak. I will explain in my case the empirical evidence behind free will not existing. I know that this test is rigged from the beginning, because our DNA and circumstances will ultimately make an individual who he is.
-----------------------------------
" If so, than I can ask you if this was the full extent of your personal attempts to reach God [did you stop trying after complaining to God that there were sinners"
I remember as a child not being able to connect with God. I would have to ask a counter question than. Are you capable of attempting to talk to God? If so, than what separates you, and the millions of atheists, Buddhists, and Hindus from not being able to communicate with God?

Case:
Which God is right-My opponent has already made it clear that he believes in the Christian God. One of the many reasons that made me become an atheist was the reality of there being too many religions. Each religion believes that there God is the right God, and this rule also applies to Christians who believe like many others believe that there God is the right God. I want to ask my opponent these six questions?
What is the defining difference between the Christian God and other Gods?

Did the Greeks go to hell for believing in the wrong God?

Will middle easterners go to Hell for believing in the wrong God?

Will Chinese people go to Hell for believing in the wrong God?

Will the Japanese go to Hell for believing in the wrong God?

Will I go to hell for believing in the wrong God?

Do you accept the fact that an all loving God would 4 billion people in Hell for believing in a different God?

Inconsistencies-In order for one to prove that there is still any relevance of the Bible in the modern world; one must have to cherry pick verses in order to do so. If my opponent is of the moderate Christian cherry pickers, than he must prove the validity of his actions.

Creation Myth: Creation states if I am correct that the world was created in six days. Creation also states that the first humans were Adam and Eve. Creation also states that Adam and Eve had paradise until they ate the tree of knowledge(because knowledge is a bad thing in religions). These elements in a story are treated as fact in the Bible. This is inconsistent with the modern knowledge that we hold today. Scientists have proved that humans immerged through a process called Evolution. Here are the facts and evidence behind evolution:
----------------------------------
-Biological Evolution started 3.7 billion years ago. The world is in fact 3.7 billion years old. It is not 6 days old, or 6 thousand years old.
-One can find evidence of Evolution through the fossil records. These fossil records can show many fascinating things which I will leave in the work cited part of this case. One example of a fossil records is fossils showing the ape's skull gradually changing into a human. This is a remarkable example of the validity of Evolution.
-------------------------------------
The most important part to take away from this is that Creation does have any evidence. Evolution has more evidence than Creation. God would have known about this. If God existed, than he should have explained accurately how the world was created if he had the wrong answers. If my opponent does believe in evolution, than he has to explain why there are false verses in the Bible. He will have to explain the relevancy of any Bible verse if cherry picking is allowed.

Noah's Ark: Noah's Ark is another inconsistency which I do not think I need to go to in depth on. Apparently, what the Bible says is that Noah's Ark held all Animals(Male and Female) He delivered them all safely where they would be able to reproduce. He also had to have polar bears on that ark too. My opponent will have to answer these questions.
1. How did Noah acquire all those animals?
2. Isn't it highly likely that those animals would have killed each other in a natural quest for food?
3. How did Noah built that ark in his time period?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Violent Verses: The Bible carries a lot of violent verses as well. One must have to look at these verses with a human perspective, and doubt the divinity and validity of the Bible:

1. 2 Kings 2:23-24
He [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!" When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. (NRSV)

2. Exodus 32:27-29
Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."(NIV)

3. Chronicles 25:12
The sons of Judah also captured 10,000 alive and brought them to the top of the cliff and threw them down from the top of the cliff, so that they were all dashed to pieces.(NASB)

4. Judges 12:5-6
Then the Gileadites took the fords of the Jordan against the Ephraimites. Whenever one of the fugitives of Ephraim said, "Let me go over," the men of Gilead would say to him, "Are you an Ephraimite?" When he said, "No" they said to him, "Then say Shibboleth" and he said, "Sibboleth," for he could not pronounce it right. Then they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand of the Ephraimites fell at that time. (NRSV)

5. Deuteronomy 2:32-34
Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, unto battle at Jahaz. And Jehovah our God delivered him up before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed every inhabited city, with the women and the little ones; we left none remaining. (ASV)

6. Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open. (NRSV)

7. Timothy 2:12
A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
------------------------
If my opponent uses the context argument, than he has to explain what context each verse is about. He will have to explain, and justify what these verses intend.
--------------------
Intelligent Design Argument- My opponent will most certainly use this argument in the defense for God's existence. First, we can argue this from a deistic perspective. If God created the universe, than who created God. You would have to follow the same logic. Now, lets just say you win the deistic point of view, and prove that there can be an intelligent designer. What makes you so sure that the Intelligent designer is the Christian God? What makes you so sure that it is the Christian God that you would dismiss the many other religions that still exist?

Concluding Statements: I believe I have proved that God indeed is inconsistent, irrational, and came from a time period that was barbaric to say the least. I am not trying to attack Christians, because many of them are good people. I am just simply pointing out the errors, inconsistencies, and overall lack of proof of God's existence.
GoOrDin

Con

GoOrDin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ariesz

Pro

I am very surprised to state that I have to extend all points.
GoOrDin

Con

I am Christian Hindu, Islamic, Mythologist Sikh. I am a practicing member of Greek, Norse and Egyptian principal. I am a Creationist.
The reason I took up this debate wasn't to defend the Christian Religion, I was here to testify to the Validity of God's Son, Jesus as being the ONE GOD, in all of these religions.

now to rebuttal you, "Inconsistencies-In order for one to prove that there is still any relevance of the Bible in the modern world; one must have to cherry pick verses in order to do so. If my opponent is of the moderate Christian cherry pickers, than he must prove the validity of his actions."
<>
~ Human behaviour is the same in as it was. Therefor it is still applicable historical record. I won't cherry pick at all. God is defined throughout the Bible to be Holistic. That is what every religion teaches about God. gods and God are not the same - All religions are henotheistic - gods are a portion of the whole > demons are qualities which inhibit the endurance of potential. ~

If you want to attack creation here ~ Then you've lost by default. Ignorance to scientific evidence, is never worth anything in a debate. In fact, I have no pre-requisites to provide the information either You simply cannot attack it. Whether I hold the information or not.
Furthermore, You say Human's proved evolution SO you have no grounds to suggest that the Observations found indicate the theory is true. SO proved Evolution was a bigoted claim. You cannot present it as fact, and certainly cannot push it: ie.
<>
"A scientific inquiry utilizes data not theory, to establish a model that is determined prior to render a predictable result. And it is scientific regardless of the results, so long as they (the results) were recorded.

Contrary to scientific inquiry is a Theory with a lapse in data being used to create an experiment where an observation (the "result") is determined to be the product of the theory proposed. "
<>

There is only one God, whom is holistically all things. a "God" is an inaccurate account of all things. a god is a portion fo all things.
SO. This debate was heads and tails for you form the start.
But. Either way. You never presented anything to suggest God was not Real.
You even suggested violence is an "inconstancy". Obviously Not. We as theists believe in Him in this world because we account for simultaneously, and determine there is not conflict.

My lack of participating was superior behaviour to your lying.

Rebuttal round ended.
Debate Round No. 3
Ariesz

Pro

I had to read the religious debates that my opponent did in order to find out if this was his legitimate stance. I am sure many of you theists and atheists alike found Con to be a troll in this debate. I can confirm that this is not true. This is his stance. I will argue against this stance, and prove why it is so outrageous.

I am Christian Hindu, Islamic, Mythologist Sikh. I am a practicing member of Greek, Norse and Egyptian principal. I am a Creationist.
The reason I took up this debate wasn't to defend the Christian Religion, I was here to testify to the Validity of God's Son, Jesus as being the ONE GOD, in all of these religions.
No, you basically admitted right there that God is a troll. You basically just admitted that God likes to play games with civilizations. You basically admitted that God sent prophets to different parts of the world, and sent completely different messages. You provide no evidence of all of these Gods being the same. There are similarities in these religions, but that is probably due to the fact that they were all made up by one common source which are humans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense:
"Human behaviour is the same in as it was. Therefor it is still applicable historical record. I won't cherry pick at all"
In other words, my opponent concedes to the fact that all of those verses in the Bible are there.
Timothy 2:12
A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
My opponent deems this acceptable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you want to attack creation here ~ Then you've lost by default. Ignorance to scientific evidence, is never worth anything in a debate. In fact, I have no pre-requisites to provide the information either You simply cannot attack it. Whether I hold the information or not.
Furthermore, You say Human's proved evolution SO you have no grounds to suggest that the Observations found indicate the theory is true. SO proved Evolution was a bigoted claim. You cannot present it as fact, and certainly cannot push it: ie.
"A scientific inquiry utilizes data not theory, to establish a model that is determined prior to render a predictable result. And it is scientific regardless of the results, so long as they (the results) were recorded."
My opponent did not say anything of substance. This is a very absurd claim.
"SO proved Evolution was a bigoted claim. You cannot present it as fact, and certainly cannot push it:"
I cannot present evolution as fact. I cannot push the laws of gravity as fact. I cannot push basic scientific principles as fact, because they all are bigoted claims. Did my opponent provide any evidence to counter the evidence of Evolution? No, he did not. My opponent did not counter the fossil records evidence. My opponent fails to acknowledge the empirical evidence of evolution. The whole argument my opponent presented should be deemed as null.
-------------------------------------
"There is only one God, whom is holistically all things. a "God" is an inaccurate account of all things. a god is a portion fo all things."
If there is one God, than why didn't his message remain consistent with each civilization.
---------------------------------------------------
Christians and Hindus know that their religions are different. Muslims and Mythologists know that their religions are different Jews and ancient Egyptian people know that their religions are different.
My opponent has made some extremely broad claims with no facts to back them up. His arguments against Evolutions was more of a complaint. He concedes with the Bible Verses that confirm gender inequality. This debate was very weird.
GoOrDin

Con

GoOrDin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
Conduct:
Con forfeited twice.
Arguments:
Con makes many nonsense or simply unfounded claims in his arguments. For example, he says that all religions have the same God, which is obviously false as there are religions with many gods and there are some religions without gods. He then states that all religions are henotheistic, but provides no evidence for this. It is just a statement. He also states that "evolution is a bigoted claim", despite the fact that evolution is a natural process, and therefore is not a claim and cannot be bigoted. He then says that by attacking creationism, the attacker loses by default, but fails to back this up. He says that creationism can never be attacked and to do so is absurd.
He calls Pro a liar, also, but yet again provides not proof.
Pro, on the other hand, shows how Noah's ark was impossible, thus showing a flaw in an omni-gods words, something that shouldn't happen. He points out how many points in the Bible are false thanks to advances in science and our knowledge on the universe today. He notes how Con makes no claims of substance and has no evidence and shows how Con's example religions were in fact very different, which would make God a bit of a troll on humanity (which is an inconsistency for an omni-god).
In summary, Con made claims and that is it. He provided no evidence for them at all. Pro however used science to show inconsistencies in the Bible and showed how Con was doing nothing but claiming.
Thus, the point for arguments goes to Pro.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
""Hinduism: states God is the mechanics of reality, the workings of reality, and the things of reality."
"Sikhism: states God is the mechanics of reality, the workings of reality and the things of reality."

I don't know enough on these two to know this stuff."

I'd like to add that the deities in these two religions are different, if you look into them. They have similarities, sure. But that doesn't make them the same.

If I have a brother who is a twin, we are similar in genetics and appearance and age and a lot of other stuff.
But we're not the same person.
We have differences.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
Perhaps if you provided real proof for your claims, you'd feel better.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
But seriously mate, calm down.

You seem pretty stressed.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
"Now I was not obligated to clarify hat to you. You're not permitted to argue so long as you are ignorant."

Ironic.

"You can't come here bitchin like a lil shitthed because you're ignorant. You're obligated to FIT YOUR SEAT."

Damn. You seem pretty angry. Calm down mate. Chill.

"This is a debate not an argument. "

Judging by that fiery temper of yours, you seem to be turning this into an argument. Your points don't contain a lot of logic, which is essential in debates.

"If you can't HONESTLY **CONCLUDE** that you KNOW what you're saying and are not Gossiping BS,then YOU MUST "SHUT THE FAWK UP". BOTH side always have BoP in a debate. Your first BoP is honesty"

You're the one who claimed ALL RELIGIONS have the same god. You've failed to back that up so far.
You're not upholding your BoP yet you're mindlessly insulting those who disagree.
And you tried to insult me on my maturity.

"if you don't want to share BoP you are ARGUING. and this is not an ARGUEING Forum."

My claims are pretty well supported by modern definitions.
You're the one who is claiming stuff and insulting those who don't agree.

You are not providing a shred of proof for your claims.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
"Greek Mythology: Chaos is the full account of reality in it's immeasurable state, father of the Titans and a contingent part of their secret workings, and active participant in the workings of all things and substance of reality."

The titans and the gods of the Greek pantheon came from Chaos, according to Greek mythology. What evidence do you have that Chaos is exactly the same as Yahweh in every single aspect?

"Norse Mythology: The cow being infinite potential, feeds literal reality, which is it he father of The Wisdom of Man. That is the holy trinity of Christianity - But it is simply a metaphor for the Singular entity which is God, and holistically they are interpreted as a singular entity which is identified as All reality."

I've looked into this and this cow thing was tied in with the creation of things. So? How does this mean that the cow is exactly the same as Yahweh in every single aspect?
You have yet to prove this.
All you have proved so far is similarities.
Just because two things are similar, it doesn't mean they're the same thing.

"The Bible: States God is the mechanics of reality, the workings of reality, and the things of reality."

The Bible states God created reality.

"The Quran: states God is the mechanics of reality, the workings of reality, and the things of reality."

Extend.

"Hinduism: states God is the mechanics of reality, the workings of reality, and the things of reality."
"Sikhism: states God is the mechanics of reality, the workings of reality and the things of reality."

I don't know enough on these two to know this stuff.

"Egyptian mythology states: God is the mechanics of reality, the workings of reality."

There are numerous gods. There is no singular god in their pantheon.

All you're pointing out are similarities.
Just because things are similar, it doesn't mean they're the same thing.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
"Hey dick. are you 12?
The greek pantheon ahs many gods not many Gods. Correct yourself and then respond to me."

Heheheheheh.
You don't seem to understand the term.
Moreover, your insult is rather ironic, since it is you who results to petty insults all the time.

"Buddhism is not a religion."

You are mistaken.

"It is only acknowledged as such by bigots. Simply because people identify it as a religion, does not make it one - it has no creation story and has no witness to it's belief structure - It is a philosophy"

Sorry mate, but it's a non-theistic religion. Plus, why is calling Buddhism a religion bigoted?
Good luck proving that.

"Buddhism is not a belief structure. It is merely a belief."

"A belief" is singular. Buddhism doesn't consist of a single belief, you do realise?

"It is irrelevant tot he structure of their general beliefs aside from the concept which it is. It is not Holistic** ~ therefor is not a religion."

You don't really know what the definition of religion is do you?

"Go lick your wounds buddy. You're looking pretty haggard."

Pretty nice coming from a guy who called ME a twelve year old.
But I'd like to reply with the fact that you don't seem to know your stuff. Christianity is not pantheistic, it is monotheistic.

"But more significantly,
"The fact is the Christian God is the exact same God in each other religion of renown"
Isn't changing my story, it's reinforcing it. How fawking stupid are you?"
But okay."

Your story is the only stupid thing here. I'll admit that the God of Islam and Christianity are similar, but they are not exactly the same, as you suggest.
If you think they are, prove it.

"How fawking stupid are you?"

Mature.
Posted by GoOrDin 7 months ago
GoOrDin
if you don't want to share BoP you are ARGUING. and this is not an ARGUEING Forum.
Posted by GoOrDin 7 months ago
GoOrDin
"False. What you are describing is pantheism. Christianity is not a pantheistic religion. It is a monotheistic religion."
Go lick your wounds buddy. You're looking pretty haggard.

But more significantly,
"The fact is the Christian God is the exact same God in each other religion of renown"
Isn't changing my story, it's reinforcing it. How fawking stupid are you?
But okay.

Greek Mythology: Chaos is the full account of reality in it's immeasurable state, father of the Titans and a contingent part of their secret workings, and active participant in the workings of all things and substance of reality.
Norse Mythology: The cow being infinite potential, feeds literal reality, which is it he father of The Wisdom of Man. That is the holy trinity of Christianity - But it is simply a metaphor for the Singular entity which is God, and holistically they are interpreted as a singular entity which is identified as All reality.
The Bible: States God is the mechanics of reality, the workings of reality, and the things of reality.
The Quran: states God is the mechanics of reality, the workings of reality, and the things of reality.
Hinduism: states God is the mechanics of reality, the workings of reality, and the things of reality.
Sikhism: states God is the mechanics of reality, the workings of reality and the things of reality.
Egyptian mythology states: God is the mechanics of reality, the workings of reality.
Native creationism: states God is the body and spirt of reality (the workings and mechanics of reality.)
etc ect

Now I was not obligated to clarify hat to you. You're not permitted to argue so long as you are ignorant. You can't come here bitchin like a lil shitthed because you're ignorant. You're obligated to FIT YOUR SEAT.

This is a debate not an argument. If you can't HONESTLY **CONCLUDE** that you KNOW what you're saying and are not Gossiping BS, then YOU MUST "SHUT THE FAWK UP". BOTH side always have BoP in a debate. Your first BoP is honesty
Posted by GoOrDin 7 months ago
GoOrDin
Buddhism is not a religion. It is only acknowledged as such by bigots. Simply because people identify it as a religion, does not make it one - it has no creation story and has no witness to it's belief structure - It is a philosophy**

Buddhism is not a belief structure. It is merely a belief. It is irrelevant tot he structure of their general beliefs aside from the concept which it is. It is not Holistic** ~ therefor is not a religion.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
ArieszGoOrDinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments (it may be drowned out by me debating with Con).