The Instigator
Blazzered
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is the Christian God real? Is the bible true?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,371 times Debate No: 70982
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

Blazzered

Con

I am going to debate on the side saying the Christian God is not real and the bible is false. I hope to have a fun and respectable debate.
1Credo

Pro

Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!

Burden of Proof

There will be a shared burden of proof in this debate, with my opponent defending the view that the Christian God is not real and myself defending the view that the Christian God exists. I will present 3 arguments in the opening round in defense of my own position. I invite my opponent to present arguments of his own in attempt to justify his view that the Christian God is not real.

Arguments for God

I will present 3 deductive logical arguments in favor of God's existence. If each premise of a given argument is more likely true than its negation, then it follows logically and necessarily that the conclusion is true. So, in order for one to reject the conclusion (God exists) one must knock down at least one of the premises. If, at the debate's conclusion, there are any arguments in which the premises remain standing, then the argument is sound and its conclusion follows necessarily.

i. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Defense of P1:I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.
Defense of P2:There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.
Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.

ii. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.
P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
C1: Therefore, God exists.

Defense of P1:Here again, premise one is relatively uncontroversial. If there is no God, then we have no standard from which to deem particular moral acts "good" or "evil". In order for objective moral values and duties to exist, there must exist a perfect standard: God.
Defense of P2:Each of us have a sense of morality which tells us that certain actions are objectively "good" or objectively "evil". For example, I can clearly recognize that altruism (self-sacrifice in order to further the well-being of others) is objectively good. I can also clearly recognize that raping and torturing a child is objectively evil. I have no more reason to doubt the reliability of these moral senses than I do to doubt the reliability of my physical senses. In other words, for any argument given in an attempt to show that our moral senses are not valid (and objective morality is therefore not valid), I can construct a parallel argument to show that our physical senses are not valid (and the physical world we experience through these senses is therefore not valid). In order for one to disagree with premise two, one must believe that an action like rape is just as "good" as an action like generosity, and that no objective distinction can be made between the nature of "goodness" of the two acts.

iii. The very possibility of God implies His actuality.
P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Defense of P1:In order to refute this premise, one would have to show that the idea of God is incoherent, such that the concept of God is as absurd as the concept of a square circle.
Defense of P2-P6:I have combined the defense of premises two-six because these premises are necessarily true so long as premise one holds true. If a maximally great being is even possible, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world (this does not imply a parallel universe idea, but by possible world I mean to say a way that the world could have been). But if this maximally great being exists in some possible world, then by its very nature it must exist in every possible world (otherwise it would not be "maximally great"). And if this maximally great being exists in every possible world, it follows that it exists in the actual world.

Is the Bible true?

The latter part of the debate resolution will be supported by the arguments for/against the former part of the debate resolution. In other words, if the Christian God is real, it seems to me that we can reasonably conclude that the Bible is true. On the other hand, if the Christian God is not real, then we can reasonably conclude that the Bible is not true.

Summary

I have presented three arguments in favor of God's existence. In order to win this debate, my opponent must refute each of these arguments (by knocking down at least one premise in each argument) and successfully put forward sound arguments in favor of his own position. Until my opponent is able to do this, we can reasonably conclude that the Christian God exists.

Thank you.

Sources

http://now.tufts.edu...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Blazzered

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and for making great arguments. Please let it be known that I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic theist. I go with what evidence is given to me and I have found more evidence against god than for him. I am not making a claim that no God exists, I am not making the claim that the Christian god doesn't exist, that is just the side I am on. I feel there is more evidence against the Christian God than for him. But I am happy to hear some evidence (if there is any) for the Christian God. So I am happy to learn in this debate.

For starters, the burden of proof.
There is no official proof to say the Christian God doesn't exist, however I would say that since we have disproven parts of the bible, that can support the idea that the Christian God is not real.

Adam and Eve we have disproven through genes and evolution. Abiogenesis talk about the origins of life which we indeed know nothing about. However evolution is a fact and the bible does not mention anything about evolution. It is known man evolved from a species of apes (not monkeys) and this would mean that the story of Adam and Eve would be false, especially since Adam and Eve were created in Gods image.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.educateforlife.org...
http://themadmanchronicles.com...
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...
http://www.icr.org...

Creation of the earth I would say is disproven because we know stars come before planets, while the bible claims the opposite.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://hubblesite.org...
http://lcogt.net...

Noah's Ark - the ark wouldn't have been able to hold all the animals, food, feces, etc. without sinking, nor would an inexperienced man and his family be able to build an ark that is better than modern professionals, that were the best in the would, couldn't match. Professional ship builders (the worlds best) couldn't build a ship as big or well made as Noah, a non professional.
Noah"s ark would have to be the size of the USA or Asia to hold all of the animals (2 of each animal) on the planet, plus food and animal feces. Humans would not (at this time) be able to control the wild animals (lions, tigers, and bears).

Flood of the earth - first off the water cycle I think disproves it by itself, it's a never ending cycle, but there is also the fact that if all the world was on the earth, it would only rise 25-50 ft
http://skepdic.com...
https://answers.yahoo.com...
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

Bill Nye explains in GREAT detail how the flood couldn't have happened.
https://www.youtube.com...

Because of these story's in the bible being disproven, I think it is safe to say that the bible isn't true, this meaning the Christian God doesn't exist, for it may be likely that his story is false.
We have Roman Mythology, Greek Mythology, Egyptian mythology, etc. it is possible that in the future, Christianity will be known as Christian mythology.

Next I will refute the idea that God is the best explanation for the origins of the universe.
I like this argument but at the same time I dislike it. It is a lot like the God of the Gaps argument saying "I don't know, therefor God". I do like this argument because no one really knows the origins of the universe or everything.....yet! Indeed we cannot explain the origins of everything, but we are still discovering and finding more evidence for the Big Bang. An example of evidence we have found, is that other planets, galaxy's, etc. are moving away from us, as if some kind of big bang had taken place.
Christians who have accepted the Big Bang have said that God caused it. If that were so, that'd mean they'd be going against their own bible, because the bible tells how god created the universe.
If the Big Bang isn't what happened, it still doesn't mean that God did it. Christians will argue that everything has to come from something. Something must've set off it all off so it must've been God. But when asked where God came from they're okay with the answer that he has always been there. It's possible that the energy needed for the Big Bang could've always been there. Just because we don't know how something was down, doesn't mean God.

Okay now morality. There is no objective morality. Simple as that.
Our morality is based on our personal views. If there was objective morality, then we'd all know what was right and wrong. There'd be no debating, no wars, etc. what's right in ones point of view, might be wrong in another's point of view.
Abortion, some say its morally right, others say its wrong.
Cloning, some say its morally okay, others say its wrong.
Homosexuality, some say it's morally fine, others say its wrong.
If there was objective morality, we'd all agree on what's right and wrong. Someone could of course ask, "so killing baby's isn't objectively wrong", I personally say its wrong. But indeed it is not objectively wrong. Adolf Hitler, a man who thought he was doing good, killed thousands of baby's and children. He thought what he was doing was morally right. It is all a matter of your opinion.

Lets not forget the things the bible has done that is very morally wrong. Rape, slavery, genocide, etc. and people think Hitler was bad.

" Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

" Deuteronomy 13:6-10 - "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

" 2 Kings 22:23-25 - "Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!" When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria."

" Joshua 6:20-21, Deuteronomy 2:32-35, Deuteronomy 3:3-7, Numbers 31:7-18, 1 Samuel 15:1-9, are all times when God commits genocide, killing men, women, children, infants, and their cattle. Joshua 6:20-21 is the fall of Jericho. Numbers 31:7-18 the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war. 1 Samuel 15:1-9 God commits genocide for something the Amalekites" ancestors had done 400 years earlier.

New Testament
Mathew
" Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
" Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother let him die the death." (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) 15:4-7
" Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

And then of course the creation of sin, flooding of earth, creation of Hell, etc.

Lastly, implying that it is possible that God could be real, doesn't officially make it so. If it wasn't possible, then we wouldn't be having this debate, or even have anyone that's religious, or any religions. We'd all know that no God was real overall. Even if one is real, it doesn't mean the Christian God is the one that is real. Maybe the God of Islam is real, or all the Hindu Gods, or perhaps a God none no one knows about.
1Credo

Pro

Thanks, Con.

Rebuttal

"Adam and Eve we have disproved through genes and evolution."

I don't take a literal view of Genesis, so on my view Adam and Eve weren't literal people. This does not conflict with the view that the Christian God exists.

However evolution is a fact and the bible does not mention anything about evolution."

Be careful; evolution is not a "fact". It is perhaps as close to a fact as we can get, but it is not factual. That being said, I affirm the view that evolution is true. As for the Bible not mentioning anything about evolution, I have a couple things to say:
(1) The Bible doesn't reject evolution either
(2) The authors of the Bible couldn't possibly have mentioned evolution, as Darwin's theory wasn't proposed until the 1800's.
(3) Several of the Church fathers affirmed belief in evolution (or something similar to it) including St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.

"It is known man evolved from a species of apes (not monkeys) and this would mean that the story of Adam and Eve would be false"


Man did not evolve from a species of apes. To say man evolved from apes is ridiculous and demonstrates the lack of understanding of the theory of evolution on my opponent's part. Man and apes share a common ancestor, but man certainly did not evolve directly from apes.

"Creation of the earth I would say is disproved because we know stars come before planets, while the bible claims the opposite."

If by this you mean that 6-day creationism is disproved, then I'd agree that creationism is false. The Bible does not "claim the opposite"; by no means is Genesis intended to be taken literally.

"Noah's Ark...Flood of the earth..."

I don't take these events to be literally true, so to argue against them is to argue against a straw man.

"Because of these story's in the bible being disproved, I think it is safe to say that the bible isn't true, this meaning the Christian God doesn't exist, for it may be likely that his story is false."

It's tough to disprove something which isn't meant to be taken literally. Arguing that events like the flood did not occur doesn't in any way bring into question the validity of the Bible. Rather, it supports the idea that these events are not meant to be taken literally.

Arguments for God

i. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

"I like this argument but at the same time I dislike it. It is a lot like the God of the Gaps argument saying "I don't know, therefor God"

In no way is this a "God of the gaps" argument. This argument uses deductive reasoning to conclude that our universe has an external cause (God).

"I do like this argument because no one really knows the origins of the universe or everything.....yet!"

We are always learning more about our universe, but remember that the cause of our universe cannot have been a natural cause (as it brought "nature" into existence). Science, as it is by definition the study of the natural world, cannot provide us with an answer with regard to the creation of our universe from nothing.

"Christians who have accepted the Big Bang have said that God caused it. If that were so, that'd mean they'd be going against their own bible, because the bible tells how god created the universe."

Again, Genesis is not intended to be taken literally. The Bible does not reject the Big Bang; Biblical authors couldn't possibly have affirmed the Big Bang because this theory was not proposed during their time.

"But when asked where God came from they're okay with the answer that he has always been there. It's possible that the energy needed for the Big Bang could've always been there.

God transcends space and time. While the universe (and everything in it) is constrained by space and time, God exists outside of it. As such, God has no beginning and no end. The universe, however, must have had a beginning due to the incoherence of an infinite past. The energy needed for the Big Bang couldn't have always been there, because this entails an infinite past.

ii. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.
P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
C1: Therefore, God exists.

There is no objective morality. Simple as that.

On your view, then, there is nothing wrong with actions like rape, torture, and murder?

"If there was objective morality, then we'd all know what was right and wrong."

What reason do you have for believing this? Objective morality does not entail that every living person know right from wrong, it simply entails that there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong". You seem to misunderstand the entire concept of objective morality.

iii. The very possibility of God implies His actuality.
P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

"Lastly, implying that it is possible that God could be real, doesn't officially make it so."

Unless you're able to refute at least one premise of the argument, then it does follow that the possibility of God's existence implies His actual existence.

"Even if one is real, it doesn't mean the Christian God is the one that is real."

This is correct, but note that the argument doesn't use the vague term "God". Rather, it uses the term "maximally great being". The Christian conception of God is the only conception that involves a maximally great being. As such, the argument leads to the conclusion that the Christian conception of God exists.

Summary

My opponent has failed to refute a single premise of any of the 3 arguments I presented in the opening round. The majority of his rebuttal consisted of arguing against a creationist worldview; as this is a worldview I do not myself affirm, all of my opponent's arguments with regard to creationism (Adam and Even, the flood, etc.) ought not be considered as they are irrelevant in this debate. As for my opponent's responses to my arguments, he did not explicitly take issue with either premise of the first argument, he demonstrated a misunderstanding of the concept of objective morality and so misinterpreted the second argument, and he did not take issue with any premises in the third argument. In any case, each premise in each of the 3 arguments remains standing, and as such each argument remains logically sound. So, we have 3 sound arguments in favor of the Christian God's existence and 0 sound arguments against His existence. For now, then, we can reasonably conclude that the Christian God exists.

Thank you.

Sources
http://now.tufts.edu...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Blazzered

Con

To start, many Christians take Genesis literal, same with Noah's flood. What I have noticed is Christians will take things as literal until it is either disproven or if it is a moral subject, will change it from literal to metaphorical. An example would be gay marriage. Several Christians would say that because of Leviticus 18:22, gay marriage shouldn't be. But now that people are accepting homosexuality, churches are opening up to it and people are now saying guy is a metaphor. All Christians take the bibles meanings in different ways. Some see parts as literal while others take it as metaphorical.

Evolution is a fact....you seem to be getting the word theory mixed between its common everyday use definition meaning an idea, with the scientific definition meaning "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." We have fossil evidence to prove evolution is a fact, and it is observed and studied everyday by evolutionary scientists. We see it happen through DNA as well.
What people mostly get wrong with evolution is the difference between micro and macro evolution. Which are not 2 different types of evolution, they're just different time spans. One dealing with changes over a short time and other dealing with changes over a long period of time.
We have bones to trace where we believe to have evolved from. Just search up homo erectus, homo habilis, and Neanderthal. There are many others as well.

When it comes to the author(s) of the bible, I hear some Christians say it was written by the Holy Spirit, others say it was written by the prophets and some say it was written by God himself.

By disproving parts of the bible it is backing up the Christian not being real. You seem to be picking and choosing what to take as metaphorical and what to take as literal and you seem to think you know what is meant to be literal and what is meant to be metaphorical. Yet everyone has different views and that creates debates amongst the Christian community. For an example, once again for be homosexuality.

With the creation of the universe you are indeed using the God of the Gaps argument. Science can't explain the creation of the universe, therefor God did it. Also science does go into areas that are something coming from nothing, it's call abiogenesis. The study of life coming from non life. The Big Bang deals with practically everything coming from nothing, a Big Bang coming from nothing. It is a theory that we are continuing to look into and find evidence for as time goes on and eventually we will be able to explain how everything came about without saying God did it unless we find real evidence of a Gods existence.

There is still no explanation for God being real. Existing outside of time or not, he wasn't created, he's just there. That's not an explanation, just like how you won't accept that nothing was around then suddenly the universe was created from a Big Bang. The Big Bang is what would've created time. The energy could've always been there despite how long it was there. Just like how God has always been around despite how long he's been around. Both can be infinite.

I never said I didn't have a problem with rape, murder, etc. because I do have a problem with it, that is my personal morality. It's subjective morality. Without God, we have "subjective morality", meaning personal feelings. Objective morality is what the bible gives you. Objective is saying something is good for a fact, something is bad for a fact.
Abortion is okay, that is fact, or abortion is wrong and that is fact.
Let's say we were debating Hitler on the Jews. He says Jews are bad and genocide is okay. (Already showing subjective morality)
You say its wrong, because the bible says it. (Objective morality)
I say its wrong, because I personally feel its wrong. (Subjective morality)
I'm not saying you base all your morality a on the bible, I am just giving an example.
There is no such thing as objective morality, otherwise we would all agree what is right and wrong.
We have subjective morality which is what we personally feel is right and wrong which is why we have war and debates and arguments and controversy and so on and so on.
If objective morality is true, then God is very flawed and hypocritical. He is also a "do as I say" kind of guy, not "do as I do" kind of guy.

Lastly, again just because it's possible that there could be a God, doesn't mean that one exists. I could say that for any mythical being/creature/God.
It's possible that there could be a Santa clause. So one must exist.
It's possible the tooth fairy could exist, so there is one.
It's possible the Islam God could exist, so he does.
It's possible the Hindu Gods could all exist, so they all do.
It's possible a spaghetti monster could exist out in existence, so there is indeed one.
It's possible there could be a creature out there that's the size of a galaxy that eats planets and lives way out where we haven't discovered it yet. So one must exist.
1Credo

Pro

Thanks, Con.

Rebuttal

"To start, many Christians take Genesis literal, same with Noah's flood."

That may be the case, but I don't take it literally, so there isn't any sense in arguing against positions which I don't myself affirm.

"What I have noticed is Christians will take things as literal until it is either disproved or if it is a moral subject, will change it from literal to metaphorical. An example would be gay marriage."

I can't speak for other Christians, only for myself. I take doctrine to be literal. So, for example, I think the Bible takes a clear stance against gay marriage. I don't take certain doctrines to be metaphorical as my opponent suggests. The stories through which certain teachings are given, however, can be interpreted in a number of ways. So, for example, the story of Jonah and the Great Fish is intended to teach that God's calling should not be rejected. This teaching remains true independent of whether or not there was a literal occurrence of a man being swallowed by a fish. I don't happen to take stories like this to be literal, but this takes nothing away from the teachings that are intended by such stories. As a side note, the story of Jonah wasn't taken literally by the ancient Jews either; it is only modern fundamentalist Christians who take this and the entire Old Testament to be completely literal.

"Evolution is a fact....you seem to be getting the word theory mixed between its common everyday use definition meaning an idea, with the scientific definition meaning "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."

I agree that evolution is true. But I'll again note (as a biology major) that in science we never claim theories (like evolution) to be factual. My opponent is correct in stating that the word theory has a different everyday usage, but the scientific definition that he provides also supports my position that theories are not facts. They're about as close to facts as we can get in science (other than laws) but they are not facts.

"We have bones to trace where we believe to have evolved from."

Then it should be quite easy to see that we did not evolve from apes, as you suggested earlier. We share a common ancestor with other primates.

"When it comes to the author(s) of the bible, I hear some Christians say it was written by the Holy Spirit, others say it was written by the prophets and some say it was written by God himself."

I tend to think the Bible was written by various authors with guidance from the Holy Spirit (which is "God Himself").

"By disproving parts of the bible it is backing up the Christian not being real."

You haven't disproved any part of the Bible. By taking a fundamentalist interpretation that every single word of the Bible is to be taken as literally true, anyone could "disprove" the Bible. The fact of the matter is that the Bible is not meant to be interpreted in this way. You cannot use your personal interpretation of Biblical scripture to prove your point just as I cannot use my personal interpretation of scripture to prove my point. We ought to consider independent arguments and evidence (as I have done) when considering whether or not the Christian God exists.

"With the creation of the universe you are indeed using the God of the Gaps argument."

I don't think you have an understanding of what a "God of the gaps" argument is. An example of this sort of argument would be: "We don't know of any cure for cancer, therefore God must be the cure for cancer". My argument, as should be evident, is not like this. My argument is a deductive logical argument, which makes use of falsifiable premises that lead to a necessary conclusion. If you want to disagree with a position, you should use argument and reason rather than resorting to unwarranted excuses.

"Also science does go into areas that are something coming from nothing, it's call abiogenesis."

Abiogenesis is not the coming into being of something from nothing; abiogenesis requires organic matter, which can certainly be categorized as "something".

"The Big Bang deals with practically everything coming from nothing, a Big Bang coming from nothing. It is a theory that we are continuing to look into and find evidence for as time goes on and eventually we will be able to explain how everything came about"

We can't possibly use science (the study of the natural world) to find an answer which cannot be naturalistic. Nature cannot bring nature into existence any more than you can give birth to yourself. Science is good for a great deal of endeavors, but science, by its very nature, has not and cannot give us an answer to the question of how the natural world came from nothing.

"just like how you won't accept that nothing was around then suddenly the universe was created from a Big Bang"

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to see the difference between God and the universe. God, if he exists, did not have a beginning. Something which has no beginning needs no cause. The universe, on the other hand, did have a beginning (as we both agree). Something which has a beginning requires a cause.

"Let's say we were debating Hitler on the Jews. He says Jews are bad and genocide is okay. (Already showing subjective morality)
You say its wrong, because the bible says it. (Objective morality)
I say its wrong, because I personally feel its wrong. (Subjective morality)"

Again, your conception of objective morality is incorrect. In your example, Hitler, you, and I each give subjective opinions as to whether or not genocide is acceptable. If objective morality exists, all it entails is that genocide either is "right" or it is "wrong". It has no effect on our subjective opinions. So, to say that objective morality is not exist is to say that there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong", in which case you, I, and Hitler's saying that genocide is right/wrong would just be gibberish, as the words would have no meaning. It's essential to understand what is meant by objective morality in order to consider whether or not it exists.

"There is no such thing as objective morality, otherwise we would all agree what is right and wrong."

*Facepalm*

Once again, objective morality has nothing to do with our opinions on what is right and wrong. If objective morality is true, there are actions which are "right" and actions which are "wrong"; whether we believe these actions to be right or wrong is completely irrelevant. If objective morality is not true, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" and the two words completely lose their meaning.

"Lastly, again just because it's possible that there could be a God, doesn't mean that one exists. I could say that for any mythical being/creature/God.
It's possible that there could be a Santa clause. So one must exist.
It's possible the tooth fairy could exist, so there is one.
It's possible the Islam God could exist, so he does.
It's possible the Hindu Gods could all exist, so they all do.
It's possible a spaghetti monster could exist out in existence, so there is indeed one.
It's possible there could be a creature out there that's the size of a galaxy that eats planets and lives way out where we haven't discovered it yet. So one must exist."

Here, my opponent attempts to show that my third argument is flawed. The problem is that this sort of argument is only sound when a maximally great being is considered. A maximally great being has the quality of necessity (it must exist in every possible world- as opposed to contingent entities or incoherent entities). So, if it's possible that a maximally great being (a being that has the quality of existing necessarily) exists, then it follows logically that such a being must exist (otherwise it would not be maximally great). Each of the examples my opponent gives are contingent beings; they do not hold the quality of necessary existence. So, there is no reason to think that these entities actually exist.

Summary

In the opening round of the debate, I presented 3 arguments in favor of the Christian God. None of these arguments have been refuted, and as such we are left with 3 sound arguments for God. On the other hand, my opponent has failed to provide a single sound argument against God's existence. As such, we are left with 0 sound arguments against God and an unfulfilled share of the burden of proof on my opponent's part. We can then reasonably conclude that the Christian God exists.

I thank my opponent for creating this debate. I enjoyed our discussion and wish my opponent the best of luck in future debates.

Sources
http://now.tufts.edu...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
>Sojourner // Moderator action: removed<

3 points to Pro (arguments). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: I was running out of time to vote, so I wanted to get it in. I will provide RFD in comments later.}

[*Reason for removal*] Votes that say something to the effect of "will provide RFD later" are not permissible. Users should only vote when they have time to write their RFDs. This tactic is particularly suspect when the debate is about to end. A voter *may* issue a vote and write a cursory RFD that is sufficient to pass moderation, and then write a more in-depth RFD later. But if the user does not even have time to write a brief RFD when voting, the presumption will be that the user did *not* actually finish reading the debate prior to casting the vote. Without some sort of sufficient RFD, the moderators have no way to verify that the person actually finished reading the debate before voting. So all voters who say that they will write an RFD after the voting period closes *will* be removed, unless the RFD is written *immediately* after the vote is posted (i.e. within minutes, not within hours or days).
===================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>Reported vote: Mariodude34500 // Moderator action taken: removed<

6 points to Con (everything but S&G. {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: CON had better conduct because Credo used many straw man arguments in saying Blazzered didn't address him. Blazzered used better arguments because Pro mostly used the bible which isn't a valid argument if you are trying o prove the bible. Also Pro used very bias sources well Con used news sites and good scientific studies. }

[*Reason for removal*] Using a straw man should be reflected in the argument point vote (since straw men are not convincing). Users cannot double vote points by awarding conduct because one side used a logical fallacy, when this should already be reflected in "arguments." Also, using poor sources is not a sufficient reason to award arguments, as Mariodude did here. Lastly, Mariodude is just flat out wrong -- Con quoted the Bible, not Pro. Pro never used the Bible as a source; Pro used the KCA and the ontological argument, not the Bible. A vote is highly suspect when it says things that are objectively false about what happened in the debate. It makes it seem like the voter didn't read the debate and is voting due to personal bias on the topic. Particularly when this is the *third time* that the same user has had his RFD removed from the same debate.
=====================================================================
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
The other vote is ridiculous. Pro never quoted the Bible, and yet this was the RFD for the vote. I reported this vote several hours ago. We'll see if it is removed.

As for my vote, Maybe I should have only awarded conduct instead of arguments
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
>Reported vote: dsjpk5 // Moderator action taken: removed<

3 points to Pro (arguments). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Con engaged in straw man arguments. Pro CLEARLY said time and again that he didn't accept Genesis as a literal work, but Con insisted on arguing against things Pro never said. This is a fallacy, so arguments to Pro.}

[*Reason for removal*] The resolution is whether the Bible is true. dsjpk5's RFD says that Pro conceded that Genesis was false. Based on this RFD's own logic, Con should have won, but dsjpk5 voted Pro. The argument point vote has to be tied to the resolution. Con can't just choose whatever he or she wants to advocate, and voters should not vote for arguments that don't have anything to do with the resolution.
====================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>Reported vote: Mariodude34500 // Moderator action taken: removed<

6 points to Con (everything but S&G). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments.}

[*Reason for removal.*] This RFD utterly fails to explain why it awarded conduct, sources, and arguments. RFD means "reasoning for voting decision." It's not sufficient to just repeat one of the point categories ("Con had better arguments"). That defeats the whole point of having an RFD system. If this were sufficient, a valid RFD would just say: Con had better arguments, sources, and conduct. The point of an RFD is to offer some meaningful and specific feedback to the debaters. This particular RFD borders on a vote bomb.
=====================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>Reported vote: Mariodude34500 // Moderator action taken: removed<

6 points to Con (arguments, sources, conduct). RFD = "Reasons for voting decision: I could write a essay on why con won here but I don't have time so we'll just say pro used many straw man arguments and misused definitions. I will say however pro was right about abiogenesis but other then that he lost."

*Reason for removal.* Failure to explain sources and conduct vote.
=====================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
>Reported vote: debatefox//Moderator action taken: removed<

7 points to Con. RFD: "Reasons for voting decision: pro uses the same arguments over and over and over agian"

*Reason for removal.* This RFD failed to explain *every single* point it awarded (arguments, conduct, S&G, sources).
====================================================================
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
To clear this up.
If a designer created everything, something must've created the designer otherwise there is no explanation for anything.

"Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true."
Nothing is factual right or wrong. It's all a matter of opinion (subjective). Therefor there is no objective morality. Everything is subjective. There is no good and evil. It's all a matter of opinion.

The possibility of a maximally great being exists doesn't mean the Christian God is real, it could be another God, or maybe there are multiple maximal deities. Utopia is a place that is maximally great, it is a perfect society, yet it doesn't exist, you could say the same for a maximally great car, or whatever you'd like. Only observation can conclude and prove if something exists.
Posted by AndrewUCLA 1 year ago
AndrewUCLA
@Nate10e

Please explain how the existence of differing moral philosophies does not undermine "objective morality." Are you suggesting that "objective morality" exists if any person, anywhere, can say that something is "right" or "wrong"? I.e., if my neighbor John thinks rape is wrong, objective morality has been proven?

If that's your position, then it is you who misunderstands the argument here. A personal god is not proven because people have moral intuitions that certain things are wrong. As a bonus: the more we learn about morality, it appears to be just another materialistic feature, a byproduct of evolution. Chimps are social and altruistic. Bees sacrifice themselves to protect the hive. We social apes likely developed social rules (which became moral intuitions) as a necessary means of assorting ourselves into social groups larger than our immediate kin. Not sure how someone feeling something is "wrong" or "bad" means there's a personal god - much less Yahweh of the Bible.
Posted by AndrewUCLA 1 year ago
AndrewUCLA
The ontological argument is the stupidest argument for God I have ever come across. First, at best, it says nothing of the Christian God. Second, and more importantly, it does not prove the existence of a deistic creator/god. I can conceive of a maximally tall thing, or a maximally smelly thing, or a maximally funny dragon, and yet there's no evidence for them. This 'proof' has been debunked so many times that I'm surprised people still resort to it.

And CON lost the argument the second he conceded that literal Genesis isn't true. No literal Genesis = no Adam and Eve = no "fall from grace" = no original sin = no need for redemption = no reason whatsoever for Jesus' death and resurrection. (Putting aside the absolute stupidity of the concept of human sacrifice as a meaningful - and indeed necessary - way for an all-powerful God to forgive his creations for using their "free will" in a way that displeases him.)
No votes have been placed for this debate.