The Instigator
unitedandy
Con (against)
Winning
75 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Pro (for)
Losing
62 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 29 votes the winner is...
unitedandy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,908 times Debate No: 13164
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (121)
Votes (29)

 

unitedandy

Con

Thought I'd try another one of these debates. Bit of a one-tune joe, but hey.

By the Christian God, I mean the Personal Creator of the universe, who is all-powerful, all-loving, all good and all knowing, and who promises salvation through Jesus Christ, and who, to a greater or lesser extent is depicted by the Bible.

Atheism, the position I will be defending is, for the purpose of this debate merely defined as the belief that there are better arguments to negate the proposition above, than to support it. In short, not the absolute knowledge claim that there is no God, but the belief that there is better reasons to disbelieve.

This debate will require both the Christian and myself to provide a case for the existence/non-existence of God, and will begin with opening statements, and continue with back and forth throughout.

Anyway, good luck to whoever accepts this debate, and I will open the floor for the affirmative case.

Thank you and good luck
vardas0antras

Pro

I like to start by thanking my opponent for this great opportunity to debate an important topic. This topic is powerful enough to convert people and I personally believe that anyone who dwells on this topic long enough with a honest mind will be saved just like the thief at the cross was saved because of his honesty. So I'm ecstatic to present my two arguments which thanks to my opponent I can do right now. However before I can do that I must point out few things:
1.If you'll use the characteristics of God in your argument, you must first prove that its scriptural. For example an all-loving and a God who's the maintainer of the universe is usually denied by the Christian community.
2.I think this is obvious but nevertheless I must mention that we cant prove the existence or the nonexistence of God as you said "In short, not the absolute knowledge claim that there is no God, but the belief that there is better reasons to disbelieve.'.Hence Ill try to give a better reason to believe.
3.No semantics or wordplay's

My two arguments encapsulated:
1.The resurrection of Jesus is a reasonable belief.
2.The Bible is an incredible book hence its likely that it has been intervened by a higher being.

1.The Resurrection Of Jesus Is A Reasonable Belief
My first statement is simple yet at first glimpse paradoxical: The resurrection of Jesus Christ is an impossible event. It simply is ludicrous. To believe that a man broke the laws of the universe 2000 years ago and then disappeared although he has defeated death is ridiculous, such belief definitely inadmissible by rational minds!Wherefore I have a burden to defend an extraordinary claim which is rather ridiculous at first glance.

My second statement is that extraordinary claims unless true have no evidence (nothing that can be ignored or refuted).
Here are few debates proving my point:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org....
Wherefore no abnormal claim has any evidence with the exceptions of what is not supernatural for example the man obviously went to the moon.

Even a shred of evidence is a huge problem for the non-believer because either the believer is correct or he's partly correct. Furthermore the abnormality and the more supernatural and the more deserving of mockery the idea of the resurrection is the more astonishing it is to find valid evidence for it!A belief like the resurrection should have no proof if it didn't happen.

Now lets examine the evidence of Jesus resurrection:

One:To begin with, we have demonstrably sincere eyewitness testimony. Early Christian apologists cited hundreds of eyewitnesses, some of whom documented their own alleged experiences. Many of these eyewitnesses willfully and resolutely endured prolonged torture and death rather than repudiate their testimony(In some cases the same was with their family). This fact attests to their sincerity, ruling out deception on their part. According to the historical record (The Book of Acts 4:1-17; Pliny's Letters to Trajan X, 96, etc) most Christians could end their suffering simply by renouncing the faith. Instead, it seems that most opted to endure the suffering and proclaim Christ's resurrection unto death.Please remember they knew and not believed whatever or not Jesus resurrected.

Two:Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem. It would have been impossible for faith in His resurrection to take root in Jerusalem while His body was still in the tomb where the Sanhedrin could exhume it, put it on public display, and thereby expose the hoax. Instead, the Sanhedrin accused the disciples of stealing the body, apparently in an effort to explain its disappearance (and therefore an empty tomb).Probabilities:

1)If the disciples have stolen the body they would have known that they fight for a lie and they wouldn't go through this:
http://relijournal.com...
What sane man would die for a lie and if all of the apostles were insane how didn't anyone notice?
2)Some have suggested that Christ faked His death and later escaped from the tomb. This is patently absurd. According to the eyewitness testimony, Christ was beaten, tortured, lacerated, and stabbed. He suffered internal damage, massive blood loss, asphyxiation, and a spear through His heart. There is no good reason to believe that Jesus Christ (or any other man for that matter) could survive such an ordeal, fake His death, sit in a tomb for three days and nights without medical attention, food or water, remove the massive stone which sealed His tomb, escape undetected (without leaving behind a trail of blood), convince hundreds of eyewitnesses that He was resurrected from the death and in good health, and then disappear without a trace. Such a notion is ridiculous.
3)Some other stranger scenario which no one knows nor has thought of but my opponent is free to propose.
4)Resurrection

Three:Another evidence is the first generation of Christians were absolutely brutalized, especially following the conflagration in Rome in A.D. 64 (a fire which Nero allegedly ordered to make room for the expansion of his palace, but which he blamed on the Christians in Rome in an effort to exculpate himself). As the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recounted in his Annals of Imperial Rome (published just a generation after the fire):

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures 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 one of our procurators, 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, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." (Annals, XV, 44)

Four:For the sake of space Ill say that I also approve the first five points made by the Bible-Defender in the first round:
http://www.debate.org...

Id say that the combination of these facts (unless proven otherwise) is more than enough to support a belief that shouldnt have any evidence whatsoever.

2.The Bible Is An Incredible Book Hence Its Likely That It Has Been Intervened By A Higher Being

Since I dont have much space for now I simply ask you and the readers to ponder these facts:
1)The Holy Bible has been translated into 2,018 languages.(This is an enormous amount of translations. In comparison, Shakespeare, considered by many to be the master writer of the English language, has only been translated into about 50 languages.)
2)Best selling book in the world!
3)Claims to be inspired by God!
Main Fact)Written over a period of 1500 years,over 40 generations,over 40 authors from many walks of life (kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, statesmen, scholars),all wrote in different places (wilderness, dungeon, palaces,prison),on three different continents (Asia,Africa,Europe) and in three different languages (Hebrew,Aramaic,Greek),written with different styles (poetry,letters,symbolic,historic),all of them having no idea that they're contributing to a one huge book but yet all of the books agree so harmoniously that one would assume that the authors at least knew each other.

I have found this debate rather interesting and i strongly urge for readers to consider what I said rather tha
Debate Round No. 1
unitedandy

Con

I am asked to provide biblical references for the characteristics of God that I intend to use in my arguments. For brevity, I will just list the 3 most commonly ascribed and immediately relevant attributes:

God is omniscient ( 1 John 3.20), omnipotent ( Matthew 19.26) and omnibenevolent (Psalms 18.30). To be sure, there are many other such sources which corroborate this, both biblically and other theological sources if necessary, but these are 3 common ones. Given that the character established is all knowing, all powerful and all good, this creates perhaps the gravest philosophical problem of all, the problem of evil ( I know, repetitive or what).

The WSA Evidential problem of evil (1)

(P1) If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.

(P2) There is lots of evil in the world.

(P3) Much of that evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good.

(C1) Therefore, there is no God who is all powerful and all good.

I define evil as:

Anything which causes pain, suffering, disability and death.

I suspect that we can all agree that evils exist and that they are frequent in the world. From the Holocaust to the Tsunamis, both moral evil and natural evil puncture our world. Anyone who doubts this need only turn on a T.V or read newspaper, visit a children's ward or suffer personal loss. Thus premise 2 is self-evident.

For premise 1, we can return to an analogy. When we go to the dentist with toothache, we do so, as rational agents, to prevent pain. The consequent jags and yanking out of the tooth is (in this scenario at least) the only way to prevent the toothache. Thus, we rationally choose to suffer this, first because there is no other way to relieve the toothache (the pain of jags and pliers and is logically necessary) and the result is a relief of the toothache (the adequately compensating good). Therefore, in order for evil to be justified, it must be logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. If a pain-free pill was available (all other things being equal), then the evils of the pain at the dentist would not be justified. There must therefore be no other way to achieve an end, and the end must in turn be worth it. The first part of premise 1 refers to the character of God. If He distributed evil arbitrarily, with no end-game in mind, then, logically, He cannot be either all-good or all-powerful. Plantinga's free-will retreat is both accepted and actually used explicitly in the argument, making it a probabilistic argument, which means that any such arbitrary evil is evidence against Christian theism, which solidifies premise 1, and with the existence of evil established, all that remains is whether there is any such evil.

Premise 3 is justified by what historians call an inference to the best explanation, and will I suspect be the main contention of the argument. An all powerful being is able to prevent the evils that occur, and an all good being is obviously willing, so the question becomes, is there always justification for the evils in the world, in the ways described above? The answer, I think, is quite clearly, no. Consider the examples of mass murders, torture, rape and other unimaginable cruelties in Indonesia, under Suharto, in Pinochet's Chile, in Stalin's Russia, Pol-Pot's Cambodia, or in Nazi Germany, and many, many more. What possible reason could there be for this horrendous evil? What compensation can there be for such barbarism? The short-term costs of such evil are so frighteningly high, so intuitively horrific and so apparently unnecessary that to attempt to justify it would is a tremendously difficult and, I suspect, an insurmountable task. Yet there is more.

In conjunction with moral evils, there are natural evils, one of which is described in the following example:

"Many babies each year are born with Down's syndrome. Most of these babies, with normal paediatric care, will grow up healthy. A significant number, however, have intestinal obstructions that will kill them if they do not receive an operation. Without the operation, dehydration and infection will cause these babies to wither and die over a period of hours and days. Today this operation is relatively simple, but not long ago these babies could not be saved . . . This baby (one born in the past with this) suffers for days, then dies." (Sinnott Armstrong,2004, P84)

Again, what possible reason, what possible compensation could explain this natural evil? But it gets far worst for the Christian, because God is both necessarily able and willing to prevent these evils, among countless others, yet they remain, and there are no obvious reasons why this is so. Lets finish with an analogy:

Suppose a politician could have prevented these genocides above, or that a doctor in the past had a remedy to such ailment as expressed by Sinnott-Armstrong, and could do so with no cost whatsoever to themselves or anybody else? What are we to think of such a refusal to act? That their reasoning is above our comprehension, even although we do not no what it is? There is quite a lot more to unpack here, but I think I should wait for a response first.

The argument, in short, is about what it is rational to infer from the evils we see in the world. Retreats to the possible will not do, because almost anything is logically possible, and as this is NOT the logical problem of evil, to use such an approach would be tilting at windmills.

Presumption of atheism (2)

P1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without such extraordinary evidence, one is justified in weak disbelief.

(P2) The claim that the Christian god exists is an extraordinary claim.

(C2) Therefore, the claim that the Christian God exists requires extraordinary evidence. Without such extraordinary evidence, one is justified in weak disbelief.

P1 is simply a philosophical restatement of a common-sense approach that we all use. Claims that are rudimentary, such as "I am eating lunch", require far less evidence than the statement, " I am eating lunch with Genghis Khan, Gandalf the Grey and Aphrodite", simply because of the monotonous, commonality of the first, and the unprecedented and implausible nature of the second. This is not to say that one could not substantiate statement 2, but the evidence require by most of us, would, I suspect, be quite huge, particularly in comparison to the first.

P2 - This is supported by the fact that the implications of such a fact would literally be extraordinary. If this fact was known tomorrow, it would immediately and profoundly change the world. Also, as stated before, the denial of P2 will create far more problems for the Christian than its affirmation, and so I expect it to be accepted. From P1 and P2, the conclusion follows.

Sources

(1) God? Debate between a Christian and an atheist, William lane Craig and Walter Sinnott Armstrong, 2004, Oxford University Press, p84.

(2) Anthony Flew, The Presumption of Atheism, P1-13
vardas0antras

Pro

Id like to start by saying that I really appreciate that you've allowed me begin in round one! I still strongly believe in what I've said in Round:1 Introduction [1] . I also would like to apologize for the last sentence in round one since its not complete, I frankly don't know what happened but if you or the readers want to know what was said, I have written the last sentence again in the comment section.Without further ado lets begin!

My opponents arguments encapsulated:
1.The Problem of Evil
2.Presumption of Atheism

1.The Problem of Evil

Perhaps a good way to look at this issue would be to consider some alternative situations for how might God run the world:
a) God could change everyone's personality so that they cannot sin. This would also mean that we would not have a free will. We would not be able to choose right or wrong because we would be "programmed" to only do right. Had God chosen to do this, there would be no meaningful relationships between Him and His creation.

Instead, God made Adam and Eve innocent but with the ability to choose good or evil. In doing so, they could respond to His love and trust Him or choose to do their own thing. They chose to do their own thing. Because we live in a real world where we can choose our actions but not their consequences, their sin affected those who came after them (us). Similarly, our decisions to sin have an impact on us, and those around us.

b) Another choice would have God compensating for people's evil actions through supernatural intervention 100% of the time. For instance, if a drunk driver causes an automobile accident, God would have to keep him and the people in the other automobile from getting harmed, for there would be many people who could possibly be caused to suffer from the accident or the death / injury of those involved in the accident. God would have to keep the drunk driver from crashing into power lines, buildings, etc. because these things would cause innocent people to suffer.

Another instance might involve a lazy person plumbing a house, and he doesn't bother to check the plumbing for leaks before the house is finished. God would have to make the plumbing not leak because otherwise the home buyers would have to suffer for the lazy person's sin.

If a father gets addicted to drugs and spends all of his money on drugs, God would somehow have to miraculously provide both the food and the social needs of the children so that they would not have to be adversely affected by the evil of the parent.

In such a world, God would be like a bad parent who enables a wayward child's destructive behavior. There would be no consequences for one's actions, and as a result no one would learn integrity, purity, honor, responsibility, or self-control. There would be no "good consequences" for right behavior, no "bad consequences" for wrong behavior. What would people become except more deviant and sinful?

c) Another choice would be for God to judge and remove those who choose to commit evil acts. The problem with this possibility is that there would be no one left, for God would have to remove us all. We all sin and commit evil acts (Romans 3:23; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8). While some people are more evil than others, where would God draw the line? Ultimately, all evil causes harm to others.

Instead of these or other options, God has chosen to create a "real" world in which real choices have real consequences. In this real world of ours, our actions affect others. Because of Adam's choice to sin, the world now lives under the curse (hence the natural disasters), and we are all born with a sin nature (Romans 5:12). There will one day come a time when God will judge the sin in this world and make all things new, but He is purposely "delaying" in order to allow more time for people to repent so that He will not need to judge them (2 Peter 3:9). Until then He IS concerned about evil. When He created the Old Testament Laws, He established laws that discourage and punish evil. He judged nations and kings who disregard justice and pursue evil. Likewise in the New Testament, God states that it is the government's responsibility to provide justice in order to protect the innocent from evil (Romans 13). He also promises severe consequences for those who commit evil acts, especially on the "innocent" (Mark 9:36-42).

2.Presumption of Atheism

You say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Ive already given you extraordinary proof in round one but I must say that I disagree with what you've said! Extraordinary claims are extraordinarily hard to prove !To prove that "I am eating lunch" Id need a camera but a photo wouldn't prove that " I am eating lunch with Genghis Khan, Gandalf the Grey and Aphrodite" because anything is more believable than this!I expand on this idea when in round one i say that:
"Wherefore no abnormal claim has any evidence with the exceptions of what is not supernatural for example the man obviously went to the moon."

Ergo:
A shred of evidence for an extraordinary claim = Extraordinary evidence for an ordinary claim

Ergo:
There are few to none alternatives for extraordinary claims = There are plenty of alternatives for ordinary claims

Ergo:
Shreds of Evidence = Good reasons to believe in resurrection
Plenty of Evidence = No reason to reject the resurrection

Although I have plenty of space, I wont promote my argument for the sake of fairness
Debate Round No. 2
unitedandy

Con

WSA PoE

First, I want to take criticisms I have which are common to all 3 responses from Pro to the PoE presented.

1) Many of the points of the response seem geared to what is "possible", rather than what is evidentially verifiable. This means that the objections assume a reason for the evil (e.g. free-will) rather than plausibly showing how this accounts for the evil in the exampled case. These conceptual objections are defeaters for the logical PoE, but actually succeed in only underlining the case for the evidential PoE, as this actually uses such objections explicitly within its premises (1 & 3). As such, these responses, even if left airborne miss the target in a dramatic way.

2) A similar point is the continued use of assumptions throughout the 3 responses: the existence of Adam, the existence of free-will, the eventual judgement of sins, etc are huge liberties which one cannot sustain in a philosophical discussion with at least some argumentation.

As for the responses specifically:

a) This response is basically summarised as God giving Adam and Eve free-will, and through this, they choose to commit sin, a choice which affects us today. Apart from those listed above, there are problems with this response. Firstly, there are biblical passages which specifically deny that God punishes those for the sins of their ancestors (Ezekiel 18.20) Also, there is somewhat of a contradiction here. God gave humanity free-will to those who were innocent. But the innocent, by definition, cannot be held accountable for their wrongdoing, otherwise, they wouldn't be innocent! Lastly, punishing those for exercising their free-will necessarily restricts free-will, and also creates incentives to obey God not because of moral reason, but to avoid punishment or experience rewards.

As for free-will generally, the example given of suffering children has nothing to do with free-will. Also, how this can be reconciled with certain branches of Christianity (Calvinism) or God's character omniscience is highly questionable. Even if this objection stands, the case for evil which is not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good is far superior, because there is ample evidence for it!

b) Pro argues that a constantly interfering God would enable destructive behaviour and/or erode personal responsibility. The problems with this response are similar. Again, some evil (the example given included) completely escape this. Removal of consequences is one thing, the inexplicable and unrelated suffering and inevitable premature death of babies is quite another, and unfortunately similar suffering, pain, disability and death permeate the existence of sentient beings. The fact that such evils happen without an explanation is also pretty telling, and that such events and their silent justification precipitates this "destructive behaviour", with many either losing the will to live or actually turning away from God testament to the fact that such a response goes to strengthen, rather than undermine, the argument. Lastly, much of the evil in the world is actually necessary evil. Think of the relationship between predator and prey, parasite and host, and we see that evil as defined will exist so long as life itself exists. How can one not agree with Darwin:

"What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel work of nature!" (1)

c) Again, we are invited to conceptualise God allowing evil to delay judgement. Along with the problems generally, Jesus specifically contradicts this idea (Matthew 16.28). Also, Like I have said before, dealing with the PoE with hell is akin to curing a headache with the guillotine! Again the contradiction of solution c) to solution a) (free-will and both judgement and an interfering, law-giver) take the response out of an already ineffective response.

Even if these responses work, most are ones which are primed for the logical PoE, but almost irrelevant to the argument presented, and would therefore encourage Pro to provide new rebuttals rather than defend ones which at most are inept.

PoA

Here Pro actually attacked premise 1 of the argument, saying that he disagrees that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Either Pro is an ultra-sceptic or unfailingly credulous. If claims of the mundane really do rank with that of the miraculous, then one is just as prepared to believe that David Blaine, for example, is just a skilled illusionist as they are to believing him to really have magic powers!!! If it takes such an extreme position to defeat this argument, I think atheists can quite comfortably see it, if the result is what Pro provides us with. But even worse for Pro he seemingly contradicts even himself:

" Extraordinary claims are extraordinarily hard to prove! To prove that "I am having lunch" I'd need a photo but a photo wouldn't prove that "I am having lunch with Genghis Khan, Gandalf the grey and Aphrodite" because anything is more believable than this!"

Exactly, and this is what the argument states. But then he reverts back to saying that a mere "shred of evidence for an extraordinary claim = extraordinary evidence". But this leads to a huge problem. There are lots more than "shreds" of evidence for many extraordinary claims, for example the eye-witness testimony and seeming uniformity of the events described by those who saw the "phoenix lights", those who believe attest to the many miracles of Sathya Sai baba or the Hindu milk miracle, the dancing sun or ghosts in the attic! Do we believe these things? Pro must, to be consistent, and this leads to problems of its own, with the theological implications of accepting such a precept, whereby other religions gain credibility from such a position. One must not be so open-minded that one's brain falls out!

Argument 1 - resurrection

Here are objections which I would have, before examining the case more fully next round.

1) See PoA
2) The unparsimoniousness of supernaturalism - Once one allows for a supernatural explanation for event E, then all bets are off, and things like mass hallucination induced by a deceiving entity are no less likely than Pro's contention.
3) Comparative cases - some of which have been mentioned have far more evidence than one could even hope for, yet one does not believe in the divinity of Sathya Sai baba. Why?
4) Problem of the vicious circle - If one assumes God is true, then one could concede that the resurrection becomes plausible (after dealing with 1 and 2), but then cannot use this as any argument for God's existence. Equally, using this this as an argument for God's existence leaves such an event so initially implausible.
5) Contradictions - Some mentioned below.

Argument 2 - The bible argument

Points 1 and 2 of this argument not only are irrelevant and easily compatible with atheism, but commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum , while point 3 takes the form of argumentum ad verecundiam and circularity. That being said, there are also numerous contradictions of the bible day of Jesus‘ death, women at tomb, etc), historical anomalies (Jesus' birth story), scientifically anomalies (Genesis), and others, but even given that these weren't there, and even if the bible was as advertised by Pro, so what? Many books have been more abundant with knowledge, new ideas, etc (such as the origin, for one), but we would not for a minute suggest that they were divinely inspired, and similarly, why do with the bible?

Sources

1) www.quotecosmos.com/quotes/27951/view
vardas0antras

Pro

First Id like to thank you for not only approving but also for encouraging me to make a new argument, also now i realized how out of place my previous rebuttal was so you've my apologies.

Problem of Evil (A rather ridiculously big subject for one debate)
premise 1:Incompatibility claim
Premise 3:Is a factual claim
Critics usually target the factual claim (P3):
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com...
http://www.bethinking.org...
http://www.skepticalchristian.com...
This one interestingly enough deals with premise 1: http://faculty.wwu.edu...
(I hope you take your time although the first three are rather similar)

Manzari's article also argues why apparently gratuitous evil is less problematic for
Christians in particular, because of certain Christian doctrines. He lists four doctrines
that make the apparently gratuitous evil we observer more compatible with an all-good,
all-powerful God.

1.The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.Some of the things that we experience may wreck our feelings of contentment, but we need to remember that God may be permitting those troubles in order to remind us not to get too comfortable with life on earth, and to think ahead to the after-life. And remember, even Jesus learned endurance through suffering. His suffering was not pointless and neither is ours.
2.Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and God's purposes.Given that we humans seem to be on a dead run away from God, trying to keep our autonomy by knowing as little about him as possible. We should not be surprised that people would also reject his moral demands on them, which results in some of the evil we see.
3.God's purpose is not restricted to this life but spills over beyond the grave into eternity.Sometimes it seems as if our sufferings really are catastrophic, but when you realize that you are offered eternal life without any suffering after you die, the sufferings of this life are a lot less upsetting than they would be if this life was all we had.
4.The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.This one is the biggest for me. Knowing God and knowing his actual character by studying the historical Jesus is a wonderful counterbalance for all the problems and sufferings of this life. A little bit of historical study reveals that Jesus was not spared the worst kind of suffering in his life, making it is a lot easier for us to bear with whatever God allows us to face.

Furthermore God is God and his mind is infinite, how can one debate Gods mind ? There are ample of subjects to cover with a title like "Does the Christian God exists" !Obviously you have no problem with this subject (it being the biggest and the most irrelevant challenge concerning the ultimate truth) but even so you cant cite what God is thinking or even begin to imagine how his mind works, all you can do is assert things which make God an improbable case.However for this to work not only must you concentrate on this one topic but you must also ignore the Book of Job (explains suffering however doesnt do much when it comes to probability of whos right).If Christianity didn't have anything else to offer, Id convert after praying for a sign (my final attempt) but thats not the case!Hence I feel no cowardliness when I say lets just move to other topics.Again,how can one debate Gods mind and if we cant then whats the point of debating it without covering other points first so that we could see if this is just another excuse or an explanation.Now the websites I gave provide adequate explanation but I just felt like writing this and I don't think i should delete it.

Presumption of Atheism (Belief that creation without a creator doesn't require extraordinary evidence)
To be honest I don't really understand this.
What's your idea of extraordinary evidence? For example: Jesus' ministry lasted only three years, but its repercussions have redirected nearly all of human history for the last two thousand years (P2?). I'd say that's fairly extraordinary, but it many not fit your criteria.Also what about the resurrection and the empty tomb? Your explanation was "mass hallucination induced by a deceiving entity" and isnt that a response one would give to refute extraordinary evidence? What about the amazing bible, is there a book which can be compared to the bible? I dont see how this argument effects my points?
My previous response: To begin I must say that it was my own idea which I didnt explore much but I am glad to have posted because now I can see what was logical and what was not!"If it takes such an extreme position to defeat this argument, I think atheists can quite comfortably see it, if the result is what Pro provides us with." No I could have copied and pasted a sound armament's and then make few adjustments but you didnt know that it was my own new idea hence i can see how you came to this conclusion.
How about this: unexplained evidence concerning the extraordinary = Something significant happened even if its not the official explanation.Also phoenix lights are nothing compared to the resurrection of Jesus because phoenix lights can be explained rather easily but explanations for Jesus resurrection are rather extreme " mass hallucination"

Resurrection (an extreme position my opponent stands for but i did the same with PoA so it evens out)
1)I did
2)Couldn't the Romans produce the body if this was true?Also thats not how hallucinations work even if multiple people were exposed to the same hallucinogen, they wouldn't see the same thing !!!Also this madness would have to last for over 250 years.Furthermore if it was something else which made them crazy (empty tomb still not explained) then it would be noted by enemies (so that theyd be justified in killing crazy people)
3) are you joking?For I find this guy a comedian and not a God!
4)Id say the resurrection makes God plausible and not the other way around (although it could work vice versa)
5)"Jesus‘ death, women at tomb" Feel free to present those "contradiction" because this is nothing new to me.

The Bible
(Did you know?:The return of the Jews to Israel is the key to bible prophecy. Most other endtime prophecies depend on the Jewish people living in Israel and not scattered amongst the Gentiles. Israel has not existed as a nation since hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Israel was established on May 15, 1948.Ain't that something?)
1)"Points 1 and 2 of this argument not only are irrelevant and easily compatible with atheism"True, its only when everything adds up can you say "wow".
2)"numerous contradictions of the bible,historical anomalies,scientifically anomalies," Ive dealt with every single one of those issues and Ive been a Christian for no more than 2 years (maybe less) but because of space you'll have to present only few of those arguments but think about it this way: If I managed to solve these few big problems how likely is it that I wont have trouble solving the lesser problems?
3)" Many books have been more abundant with knowledge, new ideas, etc (such as the origin, for one), but we would not for a minute suggest that they were divinely inspired, and similarly, why do with the bible?" Please provide me at max 3 books which can be compared to the Bible and then Ill try to show you how the Bible outshines those books by light-years (yes I know its a measurement of distance).
Debate Round No. 3
unitedandy

Con

PoE

Firstly, Pro recognises, rightly, that his past responses were "out of place", and gives us 4 different theodicies. But these fail also, and perhaps most worryingly, in many of the same ways as before:

General Criticisms

1. Again, there are far to many unwarranted assumptions, e.g. the existence of an afterlife. One cannot just assume these things. They have to be argued for by Pro, but they are not. Philosophical assumptions of this magnitude would be recognised by any academic as just outrageous.

2. Also, the responses still seem geared towards what is ‘possible', rather than probable, which again sees them missing their mark completely, as I said before. The fact that these revised answers still suffer from these problems again completely undermines any force they have. But let's look at these solutions specifically anyway.

a) This states that the purpose of life is not happiness, but knowing God. Well, besides those above, one point fatal to this idea is that of the PoE itself. It alone is perhaps the single biggest reason for people not knowing God, simply because they cannot fathom His existence with so much evil in the world. Another reason this fails is that some are prevented from knowing God (such as those cited in the argument's example) because of excruciating, premature death, with no hope of never knowing God. Lastly, taking animal suffering into account, this response doesn't even get off the ground.

b) Mankind's rebellion - Well, again the example given in the PoE is completely unaffected, but other problems also persist. Some morality provided in the bible - the stoning of homosexuals, adulterers, the infanticide present in Exodus or genocide committed by Moses for worship of false Gods calls for rebellion, does it not? Again, this also conflicts with free-will yet still leaves most evils unaccounted for, as well as those problems above.

c) The promise of an afterlife response is definitely the worst of these responses, and here's why. Even conceding such a response and perhaps even strengthening it by adopting universalism, it does absolutely nothing to address the PoE, because evils in the world (again, look at my example) are not shown to be "logically necessary for an adequately compensating good", which has been the contention of the argument since its inception. Eternal bliss just doesn't even pretend to deal with evils X, Y and Z, which is why such answers are utterly useless. Lastly, the problem of eternally tortured souls for thoughtcrime not only taints such a response, but presents perhaps an even more formidable problem than the PoE - the problem of hell.

d) The first part, that of Jesus' suffering actually adds to the PoE as yet another example of evil which is unaccounted for, giving support for 2 key premises in the argument. I would also like to ask the question of why Jesus' suffering (crucifixion) was logically necessary for an adequately compensating good (salvation)?
The second part here plays the mystery card, asking how we can "debate God's mind?" After constructing 7 or 8 responses, Pro suddenly adopts futility and even scoffs of the very notion of theodicy, just a few lines from his last attempt to read God‘s mind! But even this won't do, because we know, as I said in my first post, that the short term costs of horrendous evils are so painful that one is compelled to avoid them IF THEY ARE NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY FOR AN ADEQUATELY COMPENSATION GOOD. To think otherwise, one could not recognise anything as evils, as rape, torture or painful premature death could always be justified by appealing to mystery!

These responses are even worse than the previous ones, and one has to wonder whether such a scattered approach and the eventual mystery card, as well as their incompatibility with each other is an attempt to avoid its conclusion at all costs, rather than judging the problem on its philosophical merit.

PoA

Just a few brief points:

1) Extraordinary evidence is where the denial of a claim is far more improbable than its affirmation, given the mass of information we have (e.g. evolution).

2) The examples I gave, and to which he responded, only goes to prove my point, that taking things like eye witness accounts as evidence for supernaturalism are heavily problematic, as his video suggests, and accounting for the beliefs of these eye witnesses, even though we know that their belief is probably false, is tremendously difficult, so I think we have an argument which backfires here.

But, given that in 2 posts, Pro clearly disagrees with this principle, we are left to believe that he cannot use this, if he wishes to be consistent. Therefore, what started as an argument to massively redirect the burden of proof becomes a powerful argument for atheism, because of the principle of asymmetry. If one cannot presume all Gods are to be considered false, until positive evidence to the contrary (PoA), then they will have to demonstrate that these gods do not exist. As Christianity is exclusively monotheistic, in order for Pro to be consistent, he must actively disprove each and every other God, and cannot PRESUME them to be false, contrived, etc, precisely because he has rejected the means to do so. So here's a list of some Gods to start off with www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them). I said rejecting this argument would have dramatic consequences, and so it has proved.
(Don't worry if you can't fit the response into the character limit, just e-mail them to me. Your own thoughts, mind, no links.)

Resurrection argument

1) PoA Addressed above
2) My point wasn't providing a mass hallucination solution, but simply stating that a supernatural one would account for the data as well, which was an example of the ridiculous nature of allowing such appeals to magic - the unparsimoniousness of supernaturalism.
3) Comparative cases - As we have seen, even huge numbers of eye witnesses, who were more educated, and actually available for questioning, etc provides us with lousy evidence of the supernatural, as Pro ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED!
4) The circular problem - Assuming God = resurrection far more probable, but circular argument
Not assuming God = resurrection just so initially improbable that it would take far, far more evidence than what Pro has presented.
5) Contradictions in resurrection story - Acknowledged, however no rebuttal. My points still stand.

I said to expect a further rebuttal, but I feel that with so many unanswered criticisms, it would just skew attention away from already scarcely addressed points. Suffice to say that I would only perhaps question the empty tomb anyway, as I think all other points are either fairly uncontroversial, or are just too minor to worry about. But, before Pro can even get to the stage where we can discuss the empty tomb (and possibly convince me, I'm pretty agnostic about this), he must deal with the problems left over largely from my first rebuttal, because these fatally undermine his case.

Bible

1) Contradictions acknowledged but left completely unaddressed
2) The 3 fallacies I identified in my first rebuttal have been ignored, and in a case where even 1 such fallacy destroys an argument, to not address any of these leaves his argument sunk.
3) Even if the bible was devoid of many of these features, so what? As I said before, this amounts to little. As for his challenge, here's 3 books (not that it matters):

Aristotle's Organon - The foundation of logic
Darwin's Origin of Species - The foundation of modern biology
Newton's Principia - The foundation of physics
vardas0antras

Pro

Problem of evil (Funnily enough Christianity is a great solution to personal suffering)

The belief that evil and God cant both exist is absurd as I've proved in the previous rounds . So you say that, it might be argued that given the evil in the world, it is improbable, even if not impossible, that God exists which admittedly is what I was supposed to debate from the beginning. One thing which is clear is that your whole argument is based on probability. If it wasn't, the arguments I've presented couldn't be refuted because they're adequate explanations from a Christian viewpoint. Wherefore your argument of probability doesn't stand because:

1.Probabilities are relative to the background information one considers
If I said that 80% failed maths exam in Ireland then its very probable that since I live in Ireland that I too failed.
However if I said that 80% passed maths exam in Ireland but more specifically in my town then its very probable that I passed. Now apply this principle to the probabilistic problem of evil. Claims to prove that God's existence is improbable. But with what? If that is all the background information one considers, then it is hardly surprising if God's existence should appear improbable relative to that alone. Christians will insist that we consider, not just the evil in the world, but all the evidence relevant to God's existence, including the cosmological argument for a Creator of the universe, the teleological argument for an intelligent Designer of the cosmos, as well as evidence concerning the person of Christ, the historicity of the resurrection and for the sake of space etcetera. When we take into account the full scope of the evidence, the Christian theist might maintain, then the existence of God becomes quite probable. Hence, the theist could admit that the problem of evil, taken in isolation, does make God's existence improbable. But he will insist that when the total scope of the evidence is considered, then the scales are at least evenly balanced or tip in favor of theism. Since we don't have many rounds left I suppose everything will depend on the Bible and the resurrection?
2.We are limited
This is not to appeal to mystery, but rather to point to the inherent limitations that frustrate attempts to say that it is improbable that God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting some particular evil. Ironically, in other contexts non-believers recognize these limitations. One of the most damaging objections to utilitarian ethical theory, for example, is that it is quite simply impossible for us to estimate which action that we might perform will ultimately lead to the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure in the world. Because of our limitations, actions which appear disastrous in the short term may redound to the greatest good, while some short term boon may issue in untold misery. Once we contemplate God's providence over the whole of history, than it becomes evident how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability of God's having morally sufficient reasons for the evils that we see. We are simply not in a good position to evaluate such probabilities with any confidence. This makes the probability argument very shallow hence its not a very persuasive one when one is concerned with probability (also conversion).
3.If the Christian God exists...
One cant read the Bible without seeing tremendous amount of suffering (crucifixion,Elijah's prayer for death,book of Job,Jesus promise of persecution) and none of this goes against the bible for its in the bible. If the Christian God exists then the pain in this world makes sense and you can read plenty about it in the bible. Atheists view also makes sense of the suffering in the world but it produces no remedy hence I choose Christianity.

Presumption of Atheism
1.By your definition resurrection is extraordinary because its the most probable conclusion.
2."eye witness accounts as evidence for supernaturalism are heavily problematic"The problem is that Sai Saba was alive when he performed his miracles (also how can you compare the miracles of Sai Saba to the ones Jesus performed?For example healing blind people who were like this from birth) and Jesus appeared after he was killed and his body put in a tomb. David Blaine cant cheat death with card tricks nor can a magician who lived 2000 years ago.
3.I think that the evidence I've presented and the conclusion I offered is by far more reasonable then what you've offered. For example you have said that mass hallucination is more probable than Jesus being God. I think that the readers agree with me that this is untrue for many many reasons.
4.All your arguments until now had to with Atheism vs Christianity but now you say that I should go against all religions. Don't get me wrong that while Id like to debate with you Gods such as "Waramurungundi","Guabancex" and "Beaver Doctor" perhaps even "Bear Woman" or "Bear Medicine Woman" and religions that don't claim divine interventions like Buddhism, for this debate I cant. For starters you didn't give me a good reason and also you ought to argue from Atheists point of view since you've did that from round 1.

Resurrection
1)No problem here
2)You have no solution concerning my arguments which proves resurrection and a great possibility of God so you say that my evidence cant be right because there's no God and resurrection couldn't possibly happen?Id say the most unbiased view would be agnosticism and I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't even dare to say this for you're denying facts and likelihoods.
3)'eye witnesses, who were more educated, and actually available for questioning,'Pharisees were definitely intellects also the ancients were not dumbbells (Google anything or watch any documentary regarding history) additional I can assure you that the first 12 classes of school don't make people smart (isn't this the most lazy and the dumbest generation) or wise or anything that would make a difference in this matter.
b.Resurrection isn't lousy evidence nor is prophecy neither are miracles which today's magicians couldn't perform but a Carpenter who lived 2000 years ago could.
4)No. Now the long argument:There's a max of evidence one can be provided with and I think we all agree that someone willing to die for something they knew to be true or false is better evidence than a youtube video. Furthermore
many supernatural things even the ones that are included in the bible (although badly) can be explained but the resurrection cant be,why?
5)First you have to provide me bible verses for me to refute.
However an answer may be contained here:http://creation.com...
"or are just too minor to worry about."Yes because a multitude of Christians tortured to death although they could simply renounce their faith for a belief that they knew was true or not is a minor thing(nothing out of the ordinary)."and possibly convince me" I don't want to be rude but I doubt that you meant it, at all.

Bible
1)First provide me the verses and then Ill find a website which have already refuted these contradictions long time ago.
2)You mean contradictions?Please provide bible verses.
3)Unique things are unique and the Bible is by far the most unique book ever. It means nothing when it stands alone but when it has things like the resurrection on its side then it becomes amazing or even divinely inspired.

Due to space I cant get to details but here's what these books don't have:
Main)http://www.ntwrightpage.com...
1. Fulfilled Prophecies
2.40 authors in different continents
3.Claim to be divinely inspired
4.Age
5.First major book to be printed

Also for the next round could you be more clear about your points for I fail to see how you're winning this debate
Debate Round No. 4
unitedandy

Con

PoE

He starts off by saying that he has already proves that God and evil are not logically incompatible, and indeed such a response is effective, if the argument in question is the LOGICAL PoE. But, as stated, the contention is gratuitous evil, as defined in the argument (logically necessary for an adequately compensating good). The fact that he sees this "proof" as relevant only shows that after 4 posts, he still doesn't understand the argument. One has to charge him with the straw-manning fallacy, which adds to a growing list of fallacies.

a) Problems with probability - This response does actually deal somewhat with the argument, noting the problems with probability. But again, the problem is that he is contradicting himself. If we accept this argument as valid, then not only does it affect the bible and resurrection argument (this one specifically would be damaged fatally), but would go against what he agreed with in his first post:

"we can't prove the existence or non-existence of God"

The fact is that all a posteriori arguments rely on probability, and since he relies on them, this is truly winning a battle and losing a war. Indeed, the only argument that is a priori is the PoA, which would see atheism affirmed. So accept this if you wish, but note the consequences. The second part, "background information", is true. And all instances of evil which is not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good would be pretty substantial, or so I claim. So it seems that whatever is the cause of the resurrection or the Bible, for example, even if accepted, would not be all powerful and/or all-good, as the conclusion of the argument states. And trying to use arguments such as the telelogical argument to prop up probabilities is not only irrelevant for the most part (morally evil designer), but, frankly, somewhat dishonest. Not only did you not provide these arguments after I actually advised you in the comments section, but now you are trying to use them as factors. Nope, and such tactics are grounds for disqualification in formal debates.

b) We are limited - This again appeals to the possible and presents itself as just a bad argument from ignorance. The denial of appealing to mystery is also highly suspect:

"it becomes evident how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability of God's having morally sufficient reasons for the evils we see."

I guess readers will be the judge, but sounds like the mystery card to me. But I must say it strikes me as odd that someone who holds such a position can give a high probability to an event 2,000 years ago that was, by definition, a miracle. I think that these are double-standards. As for the merits of the response, I don't agree, and I suspect Pro doesn't either. Again, as said before, the short-term costs of the evils mentioned in the example of the argument are both so horrendous and so apparent, that one would need to show greater evidence that these were logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. To do so is massively difficult, which is why I suspect, Pro has not even tried to do so as of yet. Almost anything is logically possible, but given masses of evidence of evil's ill effects, we are compelled to act on this, not on some fanciful notion of possibility. Also, such a response could justify standing idly
by and watching the holocaust, as for all we know, it may (indeed, it must) serve some higher purpose. This is morally outrageous. Sure, if I save a child's life, it's possible they could grow up to be an ethnic cleanser, which would lead to more harm. But to prevent me from saving this life, Pro would have to come up with far more than retreats to the possible. We can't predict the future. The effects may be positive or negative of saving a child's life. But we know that the immediate situation is a great evil, and for this reason, we are compelled to help if we can. Avoiding to do so on the basis of 'what ifs' is, at the very least a terrible answer to a difficult question, and one which Pro, I hope, hasn't really thought through.

c) Pro says that because there is suffering in the bible this defeats the PoE. The logical one, possibly. The one presented, no. In fact, it adds to premise 2. And premise 1 is confirmed in the bible, with, ironically the resurrection, where Jesus' suffering is said to be logically necessary for the adequately compensating good of salvation. Only premise 3 is left, which admittedly, is the most contentious, but, I feel, has been the easiest to defend.

To sum up, after almost 10 theodicies, the PoE has survived theodicies because:

- Some commit logical fallacies (e.g. argument from ignorance in second response of last post)
- Some are mutually exclusive (e.g. free-will and greater good responses)
- Most deal with the logical PoE
- Most have been dropped
- Most make unwarranted assumptions (e.g. that of the afterlife)
- NONE deal with the example provided

This argument has been the main focus of the debate, enjoying such a sheer number and variety of responses, has stood the test of a litany of attacks pretty easily, and taints any valid argument made for the existence of God with its conclusion, that whatever is the cause of the resurrection and author of the bible, as the conclusion states, it is not all-good and/or all-powerful.

PoA

a) If the denial of the resurrection was vastly more improbable than its affirmation, this would be extraordinary evidence. However, I have given 5 reasons to the contrary,so the principle applies the other way.
b) You asked why you have to disprove other gods, and what this has to do with atheism and Christianity. I gave the reasons in my last post - because of the principle of asymmetry and the monotheistic exclusiveness of Christianity (1Kings 8.60). Given these, Christians are compelled to disbelieve most of the gods in human history. How is it you can know these are false. Well, you can PRESUME they are false (PoA), or you can study them in depth and show that they are false, either way, there is a problem here. You rejected the means to presume them false, so either you can prove all of them to be false, or you are using the principle you have rejected continuously throughout this argument. So, I ask again, e-mail me just the thousands of Gods on the list, or admit that you have not and probably never will not spend time to look at these Gods. Incidentally, if you think agnosticism is a way out, then not only is it contradictory of the passages referred to above (and, would pretty much wreck your bible argument), but would lead to fairy agnosticism, celestial teapot agnosticism and flying spaghetti monster agnosticism. The atheist accepts this principle to have weak disbelief in all gods i.e. they are symmetrical), and for the Christian to hold theirs as somehow distinct would show a double-standard.

Resurrection

I feel like there is a good case to be made for the Christian here, but with the utter lack of engagement with many of my 5 points, we failed to get to the nub of the matter. Martyrs, women at the tomb, eye witnesses, survival and dispersion of Christianity is not enough evidence to assume magic. And survival of Judaism, an initially low probability (even with agnosticism), modern-day 'miracles', and so on provide us with deep grounds for doubt. As for the case of sai baba, I agree with you. Mass eye witness testimony doesn't. Go figure

Bible

This argument is just a non-sequitur, and thus invalid. I have pointed out 3 logical fallacies in this argument, none of which Pro addresses. The contradictions, I was told had been answered but all I got was referrals or promises of coherence, not actual arguments. As for prophecies, I mentioned Jesus' prophecy of the second coming to be false, and got no response.
vardas0antras

Pro

PoE
"He starts off by saying that he has already proves that God and evil are not logically incompatible"
Indeed. I have proven that God and evil are compatible.At this point I haven't even started to argue hence I don't see a reason why this is mentioned.
a)"the bible and resurrection argument"My whole argument concerning the Bible is that its more probable for it to be true than false hence it doesn't effect my arguments.However lets say that this wasn't the case.I still can simply say that PoE isn't comparable to other subjects for PoE involves the mind of God hence we must do these things for fairness.Also my argument of probability doesn't contradict "we can't prove the existence or non-existence of God"."The fact is that all a posteriori arguments rely on probability" You have the same problem and since evil is accordance with God, the burden is on you.The rest is just rambling.
b)Most of it is just babbling but I should mention that this is an "supportive" argument meaning that this is here just to make previous argument more sound. "a high probability to an event 2,000 years ago that was, by definition, a miracle."Yes also I dont think there are any other supernatural events with that amount of evidence.
c)I didnt say that so I'm not completely sure what I'm suppodesd to say.What I did was show that the Christianity unlike Atheism (by itself) has remedy for suffering.Thats all.
PoA
a)Resurrection is improbable?Why?You provided no historical or factual reasons and the arguments you did provide aren't very persuasive since i still think that all of them are erroneous.
b)"so either you can prove all of them to be false" Just forget about it.Also what evidence is there for Zeus, I think that instant denial is logical.To be honest this is a rather idiotic argument.How many Gods have any evidence or proof or anything persuasive?Also why would I do this when I can say something like "You can't know that there are no Gods because you didnt examine all of them!!!" personally I couldn't bother with such a futile argument.
Resurrection
" Martyrs, women at the tomb, eye witnesses, survival and dispersion of Christianity is not enough evidence to assume magic" I agree this is very normal event which happens occasionally in about every nation. I remember when my grandpa died for a God he knew was false after he was tortured. Also "magic" is not the right word.
Bible
You've never provided the quotes although I asked you to do that!!! I would be glad to refute your contradictions but why should I search for contradictions to refute.Even if I did that what would be the point since its likely that the same website will have the answers.Also you forgot to diminish the facts which make the bible unique.You only said that it has contradictions and I am supposed to find the verses to refute which will probably come from Christian websites which already have the answer.
Debate Round No. 5
121 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Well Done, Unitedandy!
You deserved it, I'm a bit ashamed of how I did but hey I'm still your average Joe when it comes to debating. If you want a real challenge I recommend debating Inquiretruth. If he loses I'll convert. Literally speaking if he loses I would be very shocked. Wherefore if you want to make sure that your arguments are valid, challenge Inquiretruth. There are other great debaters but from my observations he's the best. Cheers.
Posted by unitedandy 6 years ago
unitedandy
Cheers everybody that read the debate and voted, and to vardas for participating in a thoroughly engaging debate.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
It seems that Inquiretruth dealt with both arguments Con presented...Oh if I knew
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
The PoE strikes again!

I think unitedandy won mainly based on his pointing out of one thing: a rebuttal to the PoE has to be, at least somewhat, plausible. Of course, we can't exactly asses the exact probability of evil on the hypothesis that God as defined in the debate exists but I think most people can think in terms of likely or more likely (this assumes that there is such a thing as objective probablity which is a whole new can of worms but I disgress) even if we have no specific value to assign. Vardas mainly started with possibility arguments but dropped them and then moved on to questioning the low probability of God on "gratuitous" evil by I pointing out that perhaps on Christian assumptions his theodicies/defenses are probable. The problem the *very thing in question* is his Christian assumptions. So even if he is right about God being compatible with gratuitous evil (which I think God is, obviously) it's not persuasive.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
I agree with you, and I found your arguments to be better, yet I cannot allow people to vote bomb and get away with it.
Posted by unitedandy 6 years ago
unitedandy
Come on Atheism, vote on the merits of the debate. If you agree with me, by all means vote for me. If you think vardas won, you should vote for him.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
RFD:

The all-loving god argument isn't really answered. There's arguments about free will, but this doesn't answer why babies need to die from bowel problems. The appeal to mystery isn't convincing.

I like the rebuttal to the resurrection - that pro should have to disprove "eyewitness" accounts of many other gods and events.

I also buy the argument that even a divine resurrection doesn't necessarily prove the existence of the Christian god specifically.

Conduct - much better organization for con, nicer to the judge.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Counter-votebomb commencing.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"unitedandy

Noticing your votes can mess you up so stay away from it like it were drugs."
I've said this many times so yeah
Posted by unitedandy 6 years ago
unitedandy
Just thought I'd vent a little. This is going to sound pretty arrogant and biased so apologies in advance. But can I just ask a question to those who voted for vardas. Did you even read the debate, or did you you simply skip it and vote for your own side? I mean seriously, the last guy who voted (and gave vardas 7 points) claimed that he was neutral and didn't agree with either side of the debate. With a username like studious christian, this is just nonsense. I know this happens on both sides, I just wondered whether anyone who voted for vardas would actually be willing to defend their vote in each criteria. I mean seriously, what criteria are these people using for a "better argument" when vardas committed 3 fallacies on the last argument alone, and DID NOT EVEN REPLY TO THESE IN 3 POSTS! Arguments like the PoE received many, many responses, all of which were dealt with, and don't even get me started about spelling and grammar. I know there are biases on both sides and with all people (me included), but I think we all know when, whether we agree with the conclusion or not, the winning side is the one we disagree with. So SmartAthlete, Wiseovvl, StudiousChristian and others, are you prepared to defend your vote with specific reasoning, or should we take it that your vote is one of tribal loyalty, and would have been the same regardless no matter how the debate turned out? Maybe the individuals who voted for vardas really, sincerely did think he won the debate, and judged it as honestly as they could, and determined such. And if so, I would sincerely love to here the criteria for winning a debate. But I suspect otherwise, after trying to correspond with some of these people that their motivation may be one of saboteur.

Anyway guys, feel free to show me up and expose where I went wrong in the debate. Cheers.
29 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
unitedandyvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
unitedandyvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
unitedandyvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by opinionated_girl 6 years ago
opinionated_girl
unitedandyvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
unitedandyvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
unitedandyvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by clucas 6 years ago
clucas
unitedandyvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
unitedandyvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
unitedandyvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Studious_Christian 6 years ago
Studious_Christian
unitedandyvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07