The Instigator
enpeper7
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God Is Not Real

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
enpeper7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 418 times Debate No: 88593
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

enpeper7

Pro

This debate is about whether or not the Christian God is real.

First round is for acceptance.
Jerry947

Con

This debate has been accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
enpeper7

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Definitions:

God: the Christian interpretation of God

Intelligent Design: the theory that life cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Larynx: the hollow muscular organ forming an air passage to the lungs and holding the vocal cords in humans and other mammals; the voice box.

Aorta: the main artery of the body, supplying oxygenated blood to the circulatory system.

God's logic is exceptionally flawed. If God "intelligently designs" each human, in his own image, why does he decide to make people gay? The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22). God crafts this unique human, decides to make them gay, and sends him or her to Earth, and when he or she dies, he sends them to Hell for being gay.

The very idea of praying is pointless. God has already decided the day each person will die (Psalm 139:16). A cancer patient could pray for every second of the day, but whether they live or die depends entirely on God's plan, and praying in a situation like this would not change God's plan.

God has "intelligently designed" everything according to the Bible (Hebrews 3:4). Design, in nature, is unintelligent. In the case of giraffes, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which controls the muscles in the larynx, is approximately 15 ft long. The nerve comes from the brain, passes within an inch of the larynx, travels down the giraffe's neck, loops under the aorta, travels back up the giraffe's neck, and connects to the larynx. What kind of sane designer would choose this design, instead of connecting it directly to the larynx? The nerve travels this way because it is not inherently harmful to the giraffe, so it has not been removed by natural selection.

"Intelligent design" and evolution are incompatible. If God has designed everything perfectly, why would he allow evolution to take place, seeing as it could possibly ruin his impeccable creations? Evolution is a proven theory, unlike the existence of God.

There is no scientific evidence of God. God has never left any proof of his existence, nor did Jesus leave any proof of his miracles. If there was any evidence of God, we would talk about "the science of God," not "faith in God."
Jerry947

Con

I am honestly quite confused since the argument my opponent has posted has nothing to do with disproving the existence of God. The argument is merely just questions about the existence of God. That said, I will present some arguments and then respond to what was written.

Part One-

The Cosmological argument:

a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

Defense: It is impossible for something to come from nothing. Therefore it is logical to say that everything that begins to exist has a cause. This premise is common sense.

b. The universe began to exist.

Defense: The second law of thermodynamics lets us know that the universe is running out of usable energy (hence heading towards a heat death). In an eternal universe, it would have run out of energy by now. So since this hasn't happened, we know that the Universe had a beginning (since it is not eternal). Also, there is the discovery of red-shift in 1929. Basically, this discovery showed us that the universe is expanding which means if you were to go back in time, the universe would shrink and shrink. William Lane Craig says it better, he states that "as one traces the expansion back in time, the universe becomes denser and denser until one reaches a point of infinite density from which the universe began to expand." So basically, modern science supports that the Universe began to exist.

c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Defense: Since everything that begins to exist has a cause, and because the universe began to exist, the universe must have had a cause.

d. Since the cause of the Universe has to be....
Eternal-the cause of the universe led to the existence of time.
Omnipresent-the cause of the universe led to the existence of space.
Omnipotent-the cause of the universe led to the existence of everything.
Moral-the cause of the universe led to the existence of morality
Personal-William Lane Craig states that "the cause of the universe must be an ultramundane being which transcends space and time and is therefore either an unembodied mind or an abstract object; it cannot be the latter; hence, it must be the former, which is to say that this being is personal" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org......).

Therefore, the cause of the Universe must be God since he is all of those things. Nothing else is all of those things that the cause is. So God is the best explanation for why the Universe exists.

The Existence of Jesus:

Almost all scholars in our age believe that Jesus was a real person (http://www.is-there-a-god.info...). There are many ancient historians (https://www.google.com...) that have written about him and we even have writings from the people that knew Jesus (The New Testament). You should have no doubt that Jesus was a real person. The famous historian Josephus for example stated that "Jesus was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pontius Pilate" In other words, we also have proof that Jesus was crucified. The Bible affirms all of this and even explains why Jesus' body went missing from the empty tomb. More on that later...

Jesus claimed to be God and his friends and his brothers claimed that he was God. Josephus tells us that Jesus was a good teacher. But it is a mistake to believe that Jesus was only a good teacher. C.S. Lewis stated that "is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg; or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or something worse." People of the time period indicate that Jesus was a good person and a good teacher...but you can't be these things if you are insane.

Lets go back to the empty tomb. The historian Luke states (chapter 24) that the tomb was found empty by women. How did this happen? The best explanation(http://www.reasonablefaith.org.........) is that Jesus was who he said he was and did in fact rise from the dead. People might claim that Jesus never died but this is silly considering that we know he was crucified and that he was buried. No one could survive that process. Others claim that the body never went missing which is ridiculous considering the Romans and the Jews could have merely shown Christians the body and then their faith would be destroyed. And on top of that, there are people such as the New Testament writers that claim they along with 500 other people saw Jesus after his death. Even the brothers of Jesus (who previously disbelieved in the deity of their brother) came to believe that Jesus was God. Think about that for a moment...what would it take for you to believe that your brother (if you have one) was God? Would it take a resurrection? Nevertheless they became Christians.

Since we have good evidence that Jesus was resurrected, and since only a God can do this, and since Jesus claimed to be God (John 10:30), it is true that the Christian God is the one that exists.

Part Two-

My opponent starts off his argument by saying "God's logic is exceptionally flawed. If God 'intelligently designs' each human, in his own image, why does he decide to make people gay?" My response is that my opponent has made a bare assertion and they need to support what they say. In other words, prove that people are born gay before you make claims like that.

Then my opponent states that praying is pointless because God decides when we die according to Psalm 139:16. This argument makes no sense at all. Prayer is the act of talking to God and the Bible verse only says that God knows when we are going to die. That said, why would our eventual death prevent us from talking to God? So my opponent has to explain this before any progress in the conversation can be made.

Then my opponent states that "Design, in nature, is unintelligent." No one would claim that that design is intelligent. That said, I would say that the designer was intelligent.

As for the question about the larynx, I guess God was using his creativity when creating giraffes. Or maybe this helps the giraffe in some way (with eating). I really don't know. But honestly, I am surprised that my opponent brought this up since the supposed evolution of the giraffe is a huge problem for evolutionists. Apparently, no evidence has been found to support the evolution of giraffes. The most common explanation for the giraffes long neck is that natural selection helped the giraffe eat food on talk trees. But the problem is that "we now know acquired characteristics are not inherited" (https://creation.com...). So...evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do.

My opponent then asserts (without evidence) that evolution is not incompatible with intelligent design. Many people like Michael Behe would disagree with him on that. That said, I happen to agree with my opponent so I will not press the issue.

Then my opponent makes another bare assertion that "evolution is a proven theory unlike the existence of God". I don't even know where to start on this point. First of all, if it were proven, then it wouldn't be a theory. Second of all, if by evolution my opponent means that organisms adapt and descend from other organisms, then that is a fact. But if my opponent is referring to common ancestry or that humans came from apes, then that is not even close to being considered a fact.

Lastly, my opponent leaves us with three more bare assertions which are as follows: "there is no scientific evidence of God. God has never left any proof of his existence, nor did Jesus leave any proof of his miracles."

I have just shown that cosmology is evidence for the existence of God. I could go into mathematics and into fine tuning but I like to limit the amount of arguments I use for God's existence. As for the miracles of Jesus, we just so happen to have eye witness accounts of the miracles he preformed. Read the gospels for more details.

Speaking of eye witness accounts, they claim that Jesus is eternal (John 1:1-5), Omnipresent (Matthew 18:20), Omnipotent (John 11:38-44), Moral (kind of obvious...but Matthew 5), and Personal (spent his life ministering to people). So Jesus according to the people that knew him does in fact satisfy the requirements in order to the the cause of the universe.

In conclusion, my opponent has not provided a single argument against the existence of God but has merely asked questions. I on the other hand have provided two strong arguments for the existence of the Christians God and have responded to everything my opponent has written.

I now await for my opponent's next response.
Debate Round No. 2
enpeper7

Pro

Definitions:

SNPs: Single nucleotide polymorphisms, frequently called SNPs (pronounced "snips"), are the most common type of genetic variation among people. Each SNP represents a difference in a single DNA building block, called a nucleotide.

My opponent says, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence." The cause of the existence of the universe is The Big Bang. The Bible states that God has always existed, so he never began to exist, which means he needs no creator. The problem with this argument is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports this claim and using Bible verses to prove that God has always existed is ridiculous.

Then my opponent states that, "Since the cause of the Universe has to be...Moral-the cause of the universe led to the existence of morality." The problem with this is that without a God, morality is subjective. Assuming a God does not exist, morals are a societal construct, or a set of ideas that most people agree on. The ideas are not bad ideas, but they are designed by humans.

I do not deny the existence of Jesus, I only deny the existence of his miracles. You said that, "Jesus claimed to be God and his friends and his brothers claimed that he was God." Claiming to be an all-powerful, omnipotent being, and actually being an all-powerful, omnipotent being are very different things.

You clearly agree with the quote from C.S. Lewis that you used. The quote states, "Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or something worse." This is the mad, bad, or God argument. The problem is, it is possible to be wrong, without being a madman, and it is possible to lie, without being an evil person. Therefore, it is possible that Jesus was mad, bad, God, lying, or just wrong.

There is some evidence of homosexuality being a genetic trait. Even though the "gay gene" has not been found yet, in a study of 409 pairs of gay brothers, it was found that every test subject shared the same five SNPs. The SNPs were clustered in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome and in the 8q12 region of chromosome 8. (http://www.the-scientist.com...-/)

There were approximately 3 million Polish Christians executed in Nazi concentration camps. These Christians could have prayed to God all day, but their deaths were part of God's plan, and the prayers did not affect anything.

The recurrent laryngeal nerve takes the same route in humans. I used the example of the giraffe because I felt that the length of the giraffe's neck emphasized my point. In fish, the same nerve travels from the brain, past the heart, and attaches to the gills of the fish. As evolution progressed, the neck extended and the heart lowered, and the nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart.

Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. If the Bible is to be taken literally, and nowhere in the Bible does it claim to be a series of figurative stories, life began 6000 years ago and everything was intelligently designed. Evolution is the idea that life has evolved over millions of years, slowly becoming more and more advanced, and changing due to unintelligent genetic mutations. These ideas directly contradict each other.

The definition of scientific theory is: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

In science, if an idea was originally proposed as a theory, it can never become a law, even if it is proven. The idea that that some diseases are caused by microorganisms is still called The Germ Theory, even though we can see physically see germs under microscopes and The Germ Theory has been proven.

I would like to point out that evolution has been observed. In a study that has been ongoing for 27 years, scientists have observed the evolution of E. coli bacteria. The researchers found that after 20 000 generations the surviving cells had 45 mutations that gave them an evolutionary advantage, as the Theory of Evolution predicts. (https://www.sciencedaily.com...)

As for those three bare assertions I left at the end, I was hoping you would attempt to answer those questions. As it stands, it is clear that there is no scientific evidence of God, only faith in God.
Jerry947

Con

My opponent states that "the cause of the existence of the universe is The Big Bang." The problem here is that my opponent doesn't understand what the Big Bang is. The standard Big Bang model actually supports the fact that the Universe had a beginning. But the cause of the Big Bang still has to be eternal, omnipresent, and etc...Basically, God (as my opponent defined in Round one) meets the requirements to be that cause.

Then my opponent states that "the Bible states that God has always existed, so he never began to exist, which means he needs no creator. The problem with this argument is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports this claim and using Bible verses to prove that God has always existed is ridiculous." The main thing here is that my opponent asked me in Round two to prove the Christian interpretation of God. And that God is by definition eternal. So technically, I don't have to prove that the Christian God is eternal.

That said, I did end up proving that the cause of the Universe had to transcend time since it created time. In other words, the cause of the Universe is in fact eternal. So if we go back to round two we see that my argument shows that the cause is eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, creative, personal, moral, and etc...And these attributes perfectly match the ones the Christian God has. While this could be used to argue for other Gods, that is why the second argument about Jesus was presented.

My opponent then says "that without a God, morality is subjective. Assuming a God does not exist, morals are a societal construct, or a set of ideas that most people agree on. The ideas are not bad ideas, but they are designed by humans." That is quite true. You have to deny the existence of objectively (meaningful) morality if you deny the existence of God. But it is also quite clear that an objective moral law does exist. For example, everyone knows that murder, stealing, etc...are wrong. In other words, we are all aware that a moral standard exists. For example, when someone trips you as you walk on a train, you get angry since they have done something wrong. The point is that we all know the basic moral principles.

Here is a video that restates what I just said: https://www.google.com...

I usually use the moral argument in these debates but I decided to mix things up this time.

My opponent then points out that "claiming to be an all-powerful, omnipotent being, and actually being an all-powerful, omnipotent being are very different things." The problem here is that my opponent didn't address my point. His brothers (originally not believers), friends, and people that knew him said that he was God. This is significant.

Then it is said that "it is possible to be wrong, without being a madman, and it is possible to lie, without being an evil person." I completely disagree. You can't be a good teacher and literally insane at the same time. The historian named Josephus called Jesus a good teacher and there is no way you can be a good teacher and be insane at the same time. As for lying, you cannot lie and then say that you aren't evil. Anyone who has ever done something wrong is bad/evil (to different degrees). We are kind of like fruit, when we do something wrong, we bruise and are no longer perfectly good.

As for homosexuality, my opponent claimed that people were born gay. Now it seems that he has retracted that claim and has instead said that "even though the 'gay gene' has not been found yet, in a study of 409 pairs of gay brothers, it was found that every test subject shared the same five SNPs." Basically, nothing has been proven. That said, even if there was a gay gene, this wouldn't mean that people were forced to be Gay. There are also genes that cause people to be overweight but this isn't an excuse to not take care of their bodies.

Then my opponent uses an emotional argument which goes as follows: "there were approximately 3 million Polish Christians executed in Nazi concentration camps. These Christians could have prayed to God all day, but their deaths were part of God's plan, and the prayers did not affect anything." The problem here is that my opponent is asserting a lot here. Prayer is the act of talking to God. I don't see why the camps would prevent them from doing that. That said, I am guessing my opponent means that no matter how much those specific people might have prayed for survival ended up dying anyway. This is not God's fault but it is the fault of the Nazis. So instead of blaming the creator, blame the bad people who make bad choices. The Christian God promises his followers eternal life which will make any suffering on earth look like nothing. Though...this is off topic since it has nothing to do with proving God's existence.

Then evolution was brought up again by my opponent. I understand that he believes in the process of evolution but this debate isn't supposed to be about evolution. Like I have already said, evolution is only a fact if we are talking about adaption. But common ancestry is not a fact and my opponent hasn't even tried to show any evidence supporting that type of evolution.

I have already admitted that evolution is incompatible with Christianity so my opponent doesn't have to keep asserting that. That said, the Bible makes no claim on the age of the earth so his claim about the Bible saying that the earth is 6,000 yrs old is just plain wrong. But again, none of this is relevant to the topic at hand.

As for scientific theories, I understand the scientific definition of a theory. When you define a theory in that way, then theories can become facts. But evolution is only correct at a very basic level.

Then my opponent claims that the evolution of E. coli bacteria has been observed. Again, the bacteria was adapting in these tests. E coli did grow big after mutations and it did exchange genetic material. But the e coli never became anything other than e coli. So this wouldn't count as macro-evolution (the type some Christians have issue with). Basically, the experiments showed the bacteria adapting but nothing about what happened was game changing.

The bare assertions at the end were quickly responded to. Again, cosmology supports the existence of God, the gospels are proof of the miracles Jesus did, and the evidence for God is plenty but this debate is not big enough to address all of these issues.

My understanding was that this debate was solely about the Christian God's existence. I presented two arguments in round two and they have not exactly been responded to. A little was said about the cause being the Big Bang but that statement was refuted in this round. This debate has turned into a Christian answering question after question about different topics such as God's existence, evolution, homosexuality, suffering, and etc...I don't actually mind this, but I just wanted to point out that most of what my opponent writes is not quite on topic.
Debate Round No. 3
enpeper7

Pro

The cosmological argument:

The argument states that God is timeless. If there is an intelligent being, that exists outside of time, that being cannot think, or do anything. Thinking and doing require change, and change requires the passage of time. A timeless being that can do anything is a self-contradictory idea.

If time began at the same time as the universe did, then there was no point in time where the universe did not exist, as they came into existence at the same time. The universe has technically always existed. The word "always" is not defined as an infinite amount of time, the word only applies within the confines of time. If something is as old as time itself, like the universe, it has always existed, and therefore needs no cause, or creator.

My opponent states, "The main thing here is that my opponent asked me in Round two to prove the Christian interpretation of God. And that God is by definition eternal. So technically, I don't have to prove that the Christian God is eternal." I understand that the Christian interpretation of God claims that God is eternal, but it fails to back up these claims.

My opponent states, "You have to deny the existence of objectively (meaningful) morality if you deny the existence of God." Objective is not a synonym of meaningful.

Morality is subjective. If morality were objective, everyone would share the same moral opinions. If our morals were taken directly from the Bible, adulterers would be stoned, no one would eat bacon, and trimming your beard would be seen as immoral. I am going to assume that you, at least once, have trimmed or shaved your facial hair, seeing as your profile states that you are a 19-year old male. This would mean that you are an immoral person. A person's moral views are influenced by what century they live in. Over the course of human history, moral views have become more liberal. Charles Darwin was quite liberal for his time, as he disapproved of slavery, and denied God's existence, yet today he would be seen as very conservative, and racist, as he still thought that coloured people were of less value than white people.

My opponent says that, "But it is also quite clear that an objective moral law does exist. For example, everyone knows that murder, stealing, etc...are wrong. In other words, we are all aware that a moral standard exists." These are moral standards that exist today, but they did not exist in the past. Early human tribes saw murder and stealing within their own tribe as immoral, but the stealing from, and murdering of other tribes was an acceptable thing to do. Human morals have changed as we have learned that working together, instead of killing each other is more productive, and beneficial to us.

My opponent says, "His brothers (originally not believers), friends, and people that knew him said that he was God. This is significant." Eyewitness testimonies should be taken with a grain of salt, as they are just one person's word against another person's. People who disagreed with these testimonies would have been left out of the Bible. You are accepting that these testimonies are true without any evidence that they are. Eyewitness testimonies are often very inaccurate. (http://www.scientificamerican.com...)

My opponent then says, "I completely disagree. You can't be a good teacher and literally insane at the same time." You have misunderstood what I said. I said that Jesus could have just been lying, and not insane. You say that, "As for lying, you cannot lie and then say that you aren't evil." I will assume that you have lied, at least once, as every human has. Are you saying that you are evil?

My opponent says, "This is not God's fault but it is the fault of the Nazis." The Bible claims that God decides when we die. (Job 14:5) If this is the case, the Nazis were only fulfilling God's will.

My opponent states, "Like I have already said, evolution is only a fact if we are talking about adaption." There is evidence of common ancestry. All cells are put together in the same way. Humans share 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives.
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com...)

This video explains common ancestry and macro evolution excellently: https://www.youtube.com...

My opponent says that, "the Bible makes no claim on the age of the earth" If all of the stories in the Bible are added together, the Earth was created about 6150 years ago. (http://creation.com...)
Jerry947

Con

My opponent states that "If there is an intelligent being, that exists outside of time, that being cannot think, or do anything." This seems contradictory to me since an intelligent being by definition can actually have coherent thoughts. Then my opponent asserts that change requires the passage of time. But the online dictionary states that change is "to become different" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Nothing about the definition makes it so that change is dependent of the existence of time. And besides, the fact that time/universe had a beginning proves that change is not contingent on time. In other words, time went from not existing to existing. Therefore change has happened without the existence of time.

Then it is stated that "If time began at the same time as the universe did, then there was no point in time where the universe did not exist, as they came into existence at the same time. The universe has technically always existed." The problem here is that time (the universe) itself began to exist. My opponent actually acknowledges this in that very quote. This means that before time existed, there was no universe. While it is true that the universe has existed since the beginning of time, the universe did not exist before the existence of time. And again, red-shift and thermodynamics show that the universe had a beginning.

Then it is said that "I understand that the Christian interpretation of God claims that God is eternal, but it fails to back up these claims." It should be noted that my opponent in the beginning of this debate asked me to show that the God as defined by the Bible as the true God. But what I have done is proved that the cause of the universe would have to eternal. And by definition, the Christian God is eternal (John 1:1-5, John 8:58, Genesis 1, and etc...). In other words, since the cause of the universe has to be eternal, and since God by definition is eternal, this is evidence that God is a possible explanation for the universes existence. But when we see that the cause also has to be omnipresent, omnipotent, moral, and etc...we see that a God is the most plausible explanation for the universes existence.

Then my opponent says "If morality were objective, everyone would share the same moral opinions. If our morals were taken directly from the Bible, adulterers would be stoned, no one would eat bacon, and trimming your beard would be seen as immoral." The problem here is the lack of understanding of each law. These laws were intended for a specific theocratic system in which God's morals were enforced by the government. Sin was not tolerated or encouraged in any way. So I assume you would agree that adultery is immoral. The part in which you have issue is the punishment that was carried out. So we both agree that adultery is objectively immoral. As for eating bacon (did you mean pork?) and shaving beards, these laws were established to prevent Israel from becoming anything like the other sinful nations that were sacrificing children. God wanted to make his people completely separate from them and that is why these laws existed. Basically, a person wasn't immoral for eating pork or shaving, but they were immoral for disobeying God.

Then it is assumed that a person shaving "would mean that you are an immoral person." This isn't true. The laws dissipated when the bad influences did. The basic morals values are always the same. But the laws change based on different scenarios.

It was then stated that "these are moral standards that exist today, but they did not exist in the past. Early human tribes saw murder and stealing within their own tribe as immoral, but the stealing from, and murdering of other tribes was an acceptable thing to do." Not only is this a bare assertion, but it seems to indicate that people in the past thought murder was moral. But this just isn't true. People have always thought that murder is wrong. While my opponent mentions different tribes, he doesn't give specific names. But in all of these cases, the tribes had a reason to take things from other people so it wouldn't seem like murder/stealing to them. The tribes would just see it as justified killing. Perhaps the tribes the were taking something back that belonged to them or maybe they were going to war for a valid reason. Or maybe they did these terrible things knowing that what they were doing was wrong. The point is that even tribes recognized that murder was wrong. Does this mean that they will recognize their action as murder? Or does this mean that then won't do bad things even though that their action is wrong? Absolutely not.

Then my opponent makes several assertions: "Eyewitness testimonies should be taken with a grain of salt, as they are just one person's word against another person's. People who disagreed with these testimonies would have been left out of the Bible. You are accepting that these testimonies are true without any evidence that they are. Eyewitness testimonies are often very inaccurate."

When looking to see if an account is true or not, we should see if other accounts disagree with it, and if facts are distorted. There are four gospels and the brothers of Jesus even wrote letters confirming that they were now believers. None of them contradict each other and no other eye witness testimony contradicts the gospels. So since nothing disputes what the gospels say, we have no reason to distrust what they say in that aspect. As for facts, the gospels mention real places https://carm.org...), events (http://www.christiananswers.net...), people (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...), and include embarrassing details that add to its reliability. So there is good reason to accept what the gospels say.

My opponent then says "that Jesus could have just been lying, and not insane." The problem here is that people do not die for a lie. Jesus was literally crucified and he could have avoided this death by "telling the truth." But not only that, you can't be a good teacher (as historian Josephus called him) and be a liar at the same time. So it is more plausible that Jesus was who he said he was.

Then my opponent asks "I will assume that you have lied, at least once, as every human has. Are you saying that you are evil?" My answer is yes. If any human does something wrong, then this means that they are a wrong doer. Remember my fruit analogy? When a fruit gets bruised, it is no longer perfect. Same thing with humans. Once we do something wrong, we are evil.

It was then asserted that "the Bible claims that God decides when we die. (Job 14:5) If this is the case, the Nazis were only fulfilling God's will." The verse in Job does say that God appoints a day for us to die. But it says nothing about using Nazi's to fulfill his will. God never forced any person to murder anyone else. However, he does allow murder to happen (freewill) and allows people to die.

My opponent says that "there is evidence of common ancestry. All cells are put together in the same way. Humans share 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives." To some people, this would be seen as evidence for common ancestry. But for the Christian, it is evidence of a common designer. The fact that all living things are made of the same materials show that they were all made by the same being. That particular evidence equally supports a common designer and a common ancestor.

As for the age of the earth, the Bible does not specify the age of the earth. While the time between events does add up to over 6,000 years, that calculation is not including the days of creation. And the days of creation could have had time between them and there could have also been a long period of time before the first day of creation. So the Bible does not exclude the possibility of an old earth.

I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. It is always a pleasure to debate them and I hope some things have been cleared up. it should be noted that the cosmological argument for God was not refuted and neither was the argument that had to do with Jesus. Most time was spent discussing other questions. I don't mind this at all but I think the resolution was obviously changed into "can a Christian answer my questions."
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
-SOURCES-

Onto the sources, a few sources were on whether or not Jesus existed as a person. Since both parties agreed on that and due to the fact that that wasn't the debate topic, I shall not concern myself with those.
A video of Con's talks about the basis of objective morality without God. However, objective morality hasn't ever been proven, so the video stacks at the first hurdle. Con's other sources are from biased creationist websites. One of these sites claimed, according to a quotation of Con, that "acquired characteristics are not inherited". Acquired characteristics are characteristics such as scars. Con seems to think that the long neck of a giraffe was an acquired characteristic, i.e. the giraffe stretched to reach tall trees. This is not a good argument against evolution because evolution never actually says that acquired characteristics are inherited. This source stacks at the first hurdle as well.
Pro's sources on the other hand are from unbiased, respected scientific websites that rely on fact and research in their articles. One of these sources demonstrates very well how evolution takes place and the other shows how we must not assume testimonies are perfect, as Con did in one of his arguments.
Based on these sources, Pro gets the point for sources.
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
-ARGUMENTS-

Pro's arguments pointed out how some of the biology of creatures is not as efficient as it could be, which disproves the idea of an all powerful, all knowing designer. Pro presses on with the fact that evolution is a proven theory and is incompatible with the idea of intelligent design, thus disproving the literal interpretation of Genesis and thus calling into question the accuracy of the Bible. This further brings to the table: "Why would an all knowing, all powerful being allow his message to the world be fallible.", which hints at the fact that God may not exist at all. Con then misunderstands the word "theory" in this context, saying evolution is not proven.
Next, Con makes a cosmological argument, saying that God meets the requirements. One of the biggest flaws is that he says the cause of the universe has to be moral to account for the existence of morality. This presupposes the existence of objective morality, which Con failed to prove. All he did was claim "all humans have basic moral principles". By this, I'd assume he meant "don't kill", but we have murderers who feel no remorse for their actions. Therefore, the idea of basic moral principles that are found throughout humanity is Pro also disproves the idea of a thinking and creating being existing before the universe using simple logic, in that thinking and creating require time, and as such cannot be done before the universe existed, since time did not exist at that point.
Based on these arguments, Pro gets the point for arguments.
Posted by thewiseguy1 8 months ago
thewiseguy1
I would like to further add a comment into this popular common debate.
And this goes to both existence and non....

We have to understand the bible was written sometime ago... Written in vague uniteligent format compared to today.... Example genesis...

7 days the earth was formed 6 actually... We cant surely assume this to be entirley true. A day could of meant a year decade etc. Simalar psalms read verses which seem impossilbe but could of been written in vague foramt. I am Positive a diciple of today recieving the same words would include more detail into a log of events for creation miricles religion etc.

Just something to add into your nuron thoughs processes.... But I still am in favour of a creator. Not bearded man sat in the clouds as you clearly input that way....

And design i think so....
If you think what you write in these debates is a decendant from planctum.... Now thats funny....
Posted by Briannj17 8 months ago
Briannj17
A great Q & A going on here. But pro must know that if you want to win you can't stay in the defense the whole time.
Posted by thewiseguy1 8 months ago
thewiseguy1
Pro

Read one of my comments on a similar debate...

You say gods image hence why gays....
Anatomy pro......

God didnt give gays dna building blocks which were gay.

Image.... Organs to reproduce. Infact all human anatomy has a pupose. A design....hair warmth. Eyes vision. Hands fingers write work etc etc etc. No gay anatomy pro thats such an unthought context.
Brain - to think dream imagine and educate which you clearly need...
Posted by Jerry947 8 months ago
Jerry947
In my argument, I accidentally wrote "My opponent then asserts (without evidence) that evolution is not incompatible with intelligent design."

I meant to write "is incompatible."

Sorry about that.
Posted by Jerry947 8 months ago
Jerry947
This is my 12th debate on the existence of God.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
enpeper7Jerry947Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.