The Instigator
prefdave
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
superbowl9
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Is Christianity true?

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 4 votes the winner is...
superbowl9
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 464 times Debate No: 59305
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

prefdave

Pro

I'm a Christian and I'm not ashamed to say so. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. There are many out there who dont believe in Christianity or in Jesus or in the Bible, mainly 'coz:
1. It sounds like a fairy tale
2.Its irrational
3.It presents a high moral standard
4.Its too good to be true
In this debate, I intend to present proof for the truth of Christianity, and hopefully convince my opponent about it as well.
superbowl9

Con

Hey Dave,

I accept this debate and am interested to hear your arguments in defense of your religion.

Debate Round No. 1
prefdave

Pro

What's so irrational about believing that there is a god? Sure, you might say that my argument is weak, but I would like to start of like this and then move on to the more 'rational' proofs of why Christianity is true.
People call us Christians irrational, and I dont blame them. We believe in God, the creator of the universe and everything in it, we believe in angels and demons, we even believe in miracles that include the dividing of a sea. Let me ask you a question. If somebody told you that air does not exist, would you believe them? No. But why not. You cant see air, can you. But you might argue that you can see its effects. Fair enough. We Christians have a very similar argument. We cant see God, but we can and have seen enough to know that he exists. I would suggest you look at the very simple example of a colony of ants.A crushed ant emits an alarm pheromone that sends nearby ants into an attack frenzy and attracts more ants from farther away. Several ant species even use "propaganda pheromones" to confuse enemy ants and make them fight among themselves. Leafcutter ants feed exclusively on a fungus that grows only within their colonies. They continually collect leaves which are taken to the colony, cut into tiny pieces and placed in fungal gardens. Workers specialise in related tasks according to their sizes. The largest ants cut stalks, smaller workers chew the leaves and the smallest tend the fungus. Leafcutter ants are sensitive enough to recognise the reaction of the fungus to different plant material, apparently detecting chemical signals from the fungus. If a particular type of leaf is found to be toxic to the fungus, the colony will no longer collect it. The ants feed on structures produced by the fungi called gongylidia. Symbiotic bacteria on the exterior surface of the ants produce antibiotics that kill bacteria introduced into the nest that may harm the fungi.(source:wikipedia)
Sure this doesnt exactly give concrete solid proof, but I would like to here your argument before moving on
superbowl9

Con

Thanks for your argument, Pro.

This argument consists of a few questions that Pro answers himself (and somewhat well I might add) and an example. I won't quote the example because it's quite long, but I will give my take on it.

All these biological mechanisms that the ants have come from evolution. Ants did not start out like this, but gradually genetic mutations stacked up and over time the ants developed all these traits. That's far oversimplifying the process, but if you'd like me to explain in more detail please say as such in round 3 along with your other arguments. I do this because I'm not sure if you have any problems with evolution or not.

Good luck in round 3
Debate Round No. 2
prefdave

Pro

prefdave forfeited this round.
superbowl9

Con

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by soumya_a_thomas 2 years ago
soumya_a_thomas
I believe the Christian God exists. There is some supernatural force responsible for this universe. Everything didn't start from 'nothing'.

"Why would god choose to hide himself like this? Wouldn't it be easier for him to give solid physical evidence of himself?"
John 20:29 :Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." ---Quoted from the Bible.

Atheists don't have an 'aim' in their life.(I dunno,has Con ever thought what would happen after death?) As far as Christians are concerned we believe there is God and there is a life after death. The Bible has helped us in a whole lot of situations. The Bible enriches and enlightens us. It is a source of relief to many. Try reading the whole bible...and then try to tell me that your belief is true?
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
Yes I am.
Posted by prefdave 2 years ago
prefdave
I would like to ask superbowl9 a question... are you an atheist?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
prefdavesuperbowl9Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's only argument was an attempt at creationism, but not only did Con provide a good reason to be skeptical of Pro's argument, but Pro completely neglected to try and link that to Christianity (Creation is also prevalent in Islam, for example). Pro does not meet his BoP and does not provide a proper argument towards the debate thesis, so arguments to con. Conduct also (from missing a round).
Vote Placed by daley 2 years ago
daley
prefdavesuperbowl9Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con because Pro forfeited. Pro presented a great deal of knowledge the ants have, call it instinct if you will, as evidence for creation. He also gave an example of why not being able to see God doesn't prove he doesn't exit. Con presents an alternative theory, but doesn't explain how it would work.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
prefdavesuperbowl9Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
prefdavesuperbowl9Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF