Does the Christian God of the Bible exist?
Debate Rounds (4)
1.) The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Marilyn Adamson(1) elaborates: "The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life."
Thus, God is truly the only possible way we've would've lived, as every other known planet cannot support life.
2.) The universe had a start - what caused it?
We simply cannot look away to all the research our scientists have found. We were created, but we don't know how. Now, it can only be analyzed how God created us, so he/she had to of created the universe, especially since he made the Earth.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastraw stated: "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."
Exactly as he stated, everything was made in an instance as our research will show, clarifying that this ALL was the work of God.
3.) The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
Things wouldn't just remain this way for no reason. There has to be someone with good intentions calling the shots; hence forth, a God.
Marilyn Adamson(2) wrote: "Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us."
Thus, we have these set laws of nature, which explains how a god would be behind this.
4.) The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
Cells DNA hold instructions, and duties for the cell. Without the instructions, cells wouldn't be able to do their jobs.
Marilyn Adamson(3) continues: "You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it." Thus, God must exist for their to be these instructions, and he would be the constructor of it.
5.) We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
We pursue God, and the scriptures talk about Heaven. When it is our time, God waits there for us. He seeks for us to come to him, thus, he really does exist.
Marilyn Adamson(4) goes on: "I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him."
6.) Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.
The other religions only give Prophets, or mere men who were told to do things by their respective gods. However, those other religions could be seen as sexist, as the founders only appeared to have mainly male prophets.
Marilyn Adamson(5) finishes: "Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him."
Thus, the Holy Catholic Church's God does exist, and was our sole creator.
Spike- H.S. Lipson, a Professor at the University of Manchester, UK, elaborates on scientific views: "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it." Thus, even if my opponent refutes a scientific view for this, even scientists agree with the belief of a God. They believe in the truth well enough that they alter observations for this.
Thus, I urge an affirmative vote.
'the resolution may seem flawed'
I don't quite understand how the resolution is flawed. It states a very basic sentence which my opponent must prove. There is no evidence of it being flawed. While this seems irrelevant, I thought I would just mention it so the voter does not have a bad taste in their mouth right off the bat.
'Intelligent Design Argument'
This is most likely the top argument a theist will pull up when confronted about their faith. It basically says that everything is SO perfect, that there must be some designer that made it that way. My opponent's critical error, is that he assumes the universe is conformed to us, and that it is morphed to us. If that were the case, it would be quite monumental, but this simply isn't the case. For example, imagine a pot hole in the road. A man who knows little of physics comes and looks one day to see the detail of the pothole. The next day, the man returns, but only after a rainfall. The man, again, sees the pothole (this time filled with water), and is AMAZED that the water was so perfectly made that it could fit exactly into that pothole. He thought that if the water was even SLIGHTLY a differ shape, it wouldn't fit. This, of course, is a silly scenario, and any educated human being can tell you that the water didn't have to be 'perfect', but that it conformed to the shape of the pothole. The same applies to the so called design argument. We have conformed to meet out universes resources. If the planet were much colder, it seems likely that life found a way onto that planet, but a different type of life form. One that was capable of living in cold environments. Maybe a galaxy was made solely of gaseous carbon. It's likely that, somewhere, life arose that could perfectly breathe the gaseous carbon. So it is not the universe that is perfect at all, merely that we conform to it.
'Everything must have a cause'
My opponents argument rests on a monumental point that we humans do not yet have adequate scientific ability to explain an event. So, as a result, he calls upon the 'god of gaps' to come explain this event. Just like Zeus used to cause thunder, the Christian God must have created us. In that past, we have seen so often that it is not Gods doing the work, but some scientific phenomenon. The fact that we can't yet understand the beginning of everything in no way implies a mystical entity being the reason for it. But I won't end here. I can also show, logically, another problem with my opponent's argument. He says that everything must have a cause, so what caused God? Did he just appear? How did he get here? Who created god's creator's creator? And so forth on an infinite chain of creators. A common answer to this is one my opponent will most likely use next, and I look forward to refuting that answer.
I understand the universe has laws, but how does this in the slightest dictate a God? I could just as easily say that two unicorns put their horns together and that is why we have uniformity. My opponent fails to present a link between these uniform laws and God, therefore the argument holds no water. I hope my opponent connects this argument in the next round.
This is very much like the Uniform Law argument. There is no actual link between God and this DNA coding. Until my opponent provides a logical link not based on non-evidential assertions, then there is no reason to believe this argument.
'God pursues us'
The unicorns pursue us. The apples pursue us. The Flying Spaghetti Monster pursues us. I'm sorry, I don't intend rudeness, just making a point. I could say anything pursues me, but how does that make it real? It doesn't. I ask my opponent to elaborate on this point.
I would just like to point at that Jesus is a male God. More over, my opponent's argument only has any ground if Jesus existed. As Neg, I assert Jesus does not exist. So this argument can't hold ground unless my opponent shows Jesus real. So I have refuted ALL of my opponent's attacks, but I am curious about one thing. My opponent says scientists believe in evolution, therefore they believe in god. NEWS FLASH: Evolution goes against the Bible. Therefore more and more scientists DON'T believe in God. Also my opponent states that some scientists bend observations. If my opponent advocates these scientists, then that must mean his evidence is all 'bent' and faulty. Just an observation, on to my case.
*The god of the bible is supposedly omnipotent*
The God of the Bible is supposed to be omnipotent (all powerful). An all powerful God can do anything. This creates an inherent paradox. For example, can God create a stone He can't lift. If he can't create the stone, he is not omnipotent. If He can create the stone, he won't be able to lift it, and is not omnipotent. The idea of omnipotence is impossible, therefore God is impossible.
*Gods free will can't exist with his omnicience*
The God of the Bible is said to have free will and be all knowing. An all knowing God would know the future. This would mean he would know His own future actions. Because he knows His actions, they are determined and He can't change them. So he is a slave bound by His own omniscience.
*God is not great*
God is said to be infinite. The universe is said to be infinite. If God exists, and the universe exists, and they are both infinite, then they are equal. So long as infinity = infinity then God cannot be the greatest (biggest) entity. So either God doesn't exist, or the universe doesn't exist. You choose.
*God and evil*
Basically God and evil can't co exist. If God wants to stop evil and is able, evil would not exist (it does though). So either God is evil himself or he is unable to help. Either way, the Bible dictates it's impossible either way [as God is all good and all powerful].
Sorry I rushed at the end. I have to go, but I look forward to my opponents response. Goodbye.
* "Everything must have a cause"- I ask my opponent... when you were born was there a cause? When it rains, is there a cause? Yes, for both. The fact is that God does exist, if not, who could an entire galaxy just appear? How could our ancestors 'just appear?' I ask my opponent to even begin to analyze, and answer that.
* "Uniform Law" and "DNA"- Its Biological facts that we all have DNA, base pairs consisting of Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, Cytosine, et cetera. Its also factual on the laws of Gravity, and other interstellar ideals we come up with. Yet, these things just didn't come out of nowhere in one night. This was created, and the only ideal reason could be through God. God created us with the encoded DNA, thus giving our DNA the instructions for our cells.
* "Jesus"- Yes, Jesus was real. There was Jesus of Nazareth, which is further supported by other religious pieces that describe Jesus Christ in detail (Ex. Q'ran).
* "Omnipotent"- My opponent is terribly criticizing how God cannot exist since he's all-powerful. When did being all-powerful cross-out someone's existence? Dictators are all powerful and they exist. The Negative debater is crossing-out the existence, and simply criticizing omnipotent characters. If this was about a Comic Book Superhero, or fictional hero the negative would likewise criticize such an existence.
* "Omnicience"- Knowing all isn't truly a bad thing. God has the power to prevent himself from making mistakes with our functionality, and keep us on the life he wanted us to have. He knew he would be killed on the cross, and crucified, which explains why he willingly died for his sins.
* "God is not great"- Those are two completely different things. First, the Universe has never been fully explained, so we don't know exactly how long a universe is. It may not even be infinite. Secondly, its up to our peers on whether he exists or not. I'm merely defending my side.
* "God and Evil"- God can be good, and not stop evil. He died for our sins, and people commit sins more than once in their life. He gave us life, and is letting us choose how we act. What would be the sense in life if we had no freedom. He doesn't make us be of the Catholic faith; he allows us to choose how we live.
Argument on their general case: *My opponent takes the rather scientific view point on life - saying that things can be explained - and just because we don't know the answer, doesn't mean there's an entity at work. My opponent even doubts the catholic religion of there being a God, born Jesus Christ, the almighty father. However, can science answer the question of what we, the humans, and the ancestors of us, the apes, originated from? My opponent is simply supressing the existence of the Jesus Christ, by uttering the same words over and over, that there is no scientific evidence. But, why would someone make up lies about an all-powerful man, even make a religion? Was there an ancient man who just had too much time on there hands? Was there?
* "Everything must have a cause"*
My opponent states that everything must have a cause. So in this logic, what caused God? And what caused whatever created God? It does seem necessary that there was a cause not caused. Let's look at the possibilities.
1) The universe is infinite and is of itself.
2) A mysterious God no one has seen that is infinite created a universe that is infinite.
Occam's Razor dictates: "Do not multiply entities" This means that when given a situation, the simplest answer is most likely the answer. So it is much more likely that choice (1) is the answer as it is simplest. The extra medium of some God is ridiculous, as no evidence is for it. I would also like to point out that must because my opponent's asserts something as fact, does make it fact without logical or evidential backup.
*Uniform Law & DNA*
This argument is exactly the same as the previous argument. Please see previous argument.
Asserting that Jesus was real does not make him real! Can I have some evidence? Perhaps a passage, a link, or anything? Blunt assertions prove absolutely nothing.
It seems my opponent didn't actually read my argument. I explained that omnicience can't go along with omnipotence because it's logically impossible. Look back at my argument to see the whole thing. I was not associating any other powerful beings as an example of any 'superheros'. I am really confused about this refutall by my opponent. I'm not even sure that it's a refutal at all. Anywho, cross apply my argument, and I hope my opponent actually refutes it next round.
Once again the opponent did not even seem to understand my argument. It's that God is a slave to his own omnicience as he already knows the outcome of his own choices. This means that he knows what he will do, and will be unable to escape doing that (making him not omnipotent). Please cross apply argument, again.
*God is not great*
Logically, the universe can't end. It is not possible to reach a point where we simply 'stop' and can't go anymore. This is illogical. Plus, science shows space itself is infinite, with matter always expanding. And I think my opponent just stated that whether or not god exists is irrelevant to this debate. Really!!!? I'm doubting my opponent's ability to make logical arguments.
*God and evil*
How? My opponent again makes baseless assertions. These have no power. And why do you keep talking about Catholicism???? Also, the voter should notice all of my opponent's argument use evidence directly from the religion, and none from other sources. Saying 'God died for us' obviously only stands if he is real.
I'm going to break down my opponent's conclusion.
'My opponent takes the rather scientific view point on life'
Obviously I do. I think it's better when things have evidence backed my science rather than baseless assertions. Everything you see around you is from science and dictated by it. If you state that God can only be real without science, then you yourself have shown God illogical.
'My opponent even doubts the catholic religion of there being a God'
Duh!!! Look at the resolution!
'can science answer the question of what we, the humans, and the ancestors of us, the apes, originated from'
Yes it can, OH WAIT!! You don't believe in science!
'My opponent is simply supressing the existence of the Jesus Christ, by uttering the same words over and over, that there is no scientific evidence'
Now my opponent is starting to understand the problem of religion. Also, I made attacks based on logic as well as reason. There are not any different categories of attacks other than those that I could make.
'why would someone make up lies about an all-powerful man, even make a religion'
Glad you asked. Religion can control the masses. It's also a GREAT form of income. How else is a government supposed to control an ignorant people without the sway of religion? I feel that we are starting to become more intelligent though, and starting to be able to break free from the bonds of religion. Also, this statement doesn't prove anything. I can make up a story about Rodney the unicorn, but that doesn't make it true. If this sentence affirms your faith in god, then it also can affirm the Faith in equally ignorant things such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
'Was there an ancient man who just had too much time on there hands? Was there?'
IN CLOSING: I have won because I made claims based on evidence and/or logic, whilst my opponent made blunt assertions backed up by his own beliefs. He failed to understand almost all arguments, and uses logic that is faulty. For example "The story of Jesus is told, so Jesus must be real". My opponent's arguments like these is what loses him the debate.
TheWheel forfeited this round.
The so-called "Baseless Claims" argument, made many times toward my case of a real God, aka Jesus Christ existing is merely contradictory. My opponent talks of how the Universe is infinite, and ever-expanding matter occurs. However, does my opponent have any proof of this? No. Do they have any proof the universe never ends? No. My opponent's such claims are baseless, and cannot be upheld by this argument on the case.
The "opinion argumentation" attacks on my case are also contradictory. My opponent claim's that I have no evidence, and my contentions are just my opinions. However, my opponent provides no evidence of their own, making even their own contentions useless. Thus, if you are voting on whoever was better able to apply a case, and be effective with evidence, you must affirm the resolution, as I gave multiple cards through my contentions on why the Christian God does exist.
To continue on with the argumentation- 1) Religion cannot control the masses. It is most definitely not used to control them, as my opponent provided no warrant to support this argument, thus this must be dropped. 2) Science does work to back up Baseless Assertions! Baseless Assertions are simply an Hypothesis, a Theory that has yet to be proven! If my opponent denies this from science, my opponent is directly contradicting their own views, and destroying all of the very things science has discovered thanks to these so-called: "Baseless Assertions." 3) and lastly, you may use the following website (http://www.lucidcafe.com...) for proof of Jesus' existence. Thank you, and good luck.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Missed round
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.