The Instigator
nonprophet
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Loveshismom
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Is the Christian God 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 3 votes the winner is...
nonprophet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,026 times Debate No: 53259
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (3)

 

nonprophet

Con

First round is acceptance
Loveshismom

Pro

I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
nonprophet

Con

There is no demonstrable evidence that the Christian god exists.
The Bible is full of contradictions and scientific impossibilities.
There is no historical evidence outside the Bible that Jesus ever existed.

Loveshismom

Pro

Point 1: "There is no historical evidence outside the Bible that Jesus ever existed," yes there is. There is evidence for him, even from non-Christian sources. There is evidence from Tacitus, Babylonian Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and from Lucian [1].

Point 2: "There is no demonstrable evidence that God exists," again, yes there is. As shown in my video, legitimate science provides hard evidence of God's existence through DNA for a number of reasons, such as that information only comes from preexisting information. DNA contains the information that shapes our bodies and those of all living things. Because our enzymes are always right about our DNA, there is not much, if any evidence that they could become so intelligent all by themselves. Therefore, they were designed by a Creator, AKA God. The evidence is referring to something that still happens today to prove God and is therefore demonstrable. If you want more evidence, I have more.

http://m.youtube.com...

Point 3: "The Bible is full of contradictions and scientific impossibilities."

As for the first contradiction shown in your video, the chapters the verses are in give conditions for God's anger. I came to this conclusion reading the whole chapters myself. The condition in Micah chapter 7 is that the people turn from their sins. Jeremiah 17 also repeatedly mentioned Israel's sins, how bad they were, and that they would not repent.

The second contradiction? I read the verse in my own Bible and it says God tested Abraham. Tests and temptations are two separate things.

The third contradiction? Faith is the belief in what you cannot see. Why would you work for God if you did not have a strong trust for Him and a lot of faith in Him?

The fourth contradiction? God could have possessed an angel's body with their approval when he went to Abraham. There is nothing saying he did not. As for "the consequence of seeing the face of God is death," that may only be referring to physical death.

Fifth? Leviticus is a book of mere laws that had no direct connection to Judaism, and s therefore irrelevant to Christianity.

Sixth? I read the two verses and they appeared to be on two very different topics.

Seventh? Neither verse specifies that the animals started out as intelligent and moving dirt clods. Here is some more evidence that the Bible does not contradict itself:
http://pleaseconvinceme.com...

You really need to get a Bible and read the verses much more carefully, with deep thought and an open mind to possibilities with no direct address from the Bible like I did.

As for all of its scientific improbabilities, if you ask God for hard evidence that He exists, and you genuinely want it, He will give you some. He also may give you this proof in the form of the scientific impossibilities coming true in front of your own eyes. How would He do that? Because He is all-powerful. Or you could simply ask Him directly to do something in front of your own eyes that is scientifically implausible. But make sure you are doing it right [2].

Sources:

[1]-http://www.probe.org...

[2]- http://www.sermoncentral.com...
Debate Round No. 2
nonprophet

Con

The writings of Tacitus can be considered as either non-Canonical confirmation or as useless, depending on whether the scholar thinks Tacitus exercised due diligence in investigating the story before writing the passage.

Given that we are lacking key information, and that the passage itself provides very little detail, a determination about Tacitus' diligence in investigating it cannot be made. Any statement which assumes he did exercise due diligence (i.e. that what he said was based on fact) is speculative.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

All of these supposed evidences have been critically examined by many scholars. None of the above evidences provide sufficient evidence for the [historicity of Jesus]. None of the given sources were even alive during the time of jesus, all the historians of the time who were alive never mention jesus once.

http://rationalwiki.org...


Pliny the Younger only mentions the existence of the Christian sect and gives no name to the "Christ" or details about him.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

There are good reasons to assume the relevant passages in Josephus are forgeries.

The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius was the earliest non-Christian to mention Jesus. Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, means he could not have been an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., even later than the first gospels. Many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius of Caesarea).

Lucian, 175 CE, refers to "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world." Regardless of the fact that this is NOT an eyewitness account but written 120 years after the supposed death of Jesus, nowhere in any of his writings does Lucian mention the man's name, or the cult he brought into the world. Using Lucian as an argument for the historicity of Jesus is special pleading on the Christian's part, that is we are too assume Lucian is talking about Jesus. Except that thousands of people were crucified in Palestine, and many of these men were known to start new religions, especially around the time of Lucian. Palestine covers an area roughly hundreds of miles from north to south and east to west, it spreads from north of Damascus to the far south, past Masada and the Dead Sea. The ONLY thing this proves is that a man was killed because he started a cult.Lucian, 175 CE, refers to "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world." Regardless of the fact that this is NOT an eyewitness account but written 120 years after the supposed death of Jesus, nowhere in any of his writings does Lucian mention the man's name, or the cult he brought into the world. Using Lucian as an argument for the historicity of Jesus is special pleading on the Christian's part, that is we are too assume Lucian is talking about Jesus. Except that thousands of people were crucified in Palestine, and many of these men were known to start new religions, especially around the time of Lucian. Palestine covers an area roughly hundreds of miles from north to south and east to west, it spreads from north of Damascus to the far south, past Masada and the Dead Sea. The ONLY thing this proves is that a man was killed because he started a cult.

"Because our enzymes are always right about our DNA, there is not much, if any evidence that they could become so intelligent all by themselves."

The Miller/Urey Experiment explains exactly how DNA can come about by itself.
http://people.chem.duke.edu...




As far as Bible contradictions are concerned, simple numbers are not ipen to interpritation
http://infidels.org...

How many stalls and horsemen?

1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.


My Opponent claims: "As for all of its scientific improbabilities, if you ask God for hard evidence that He exists, and you genuinely want it, He will give you some. He also may give you this proof in the form of the scientific impossibilities coming true in front of your own eyes. How would He do that? Because He is all-powerful. Or you could simply ask Him directly to do something in front of your own eyes that is scientifically implausible. But make sure you are doing it right"

I would invite my opponent to go to a scientist and under laboratory conditions, "do it right". Then he can collect his Nobel Prize and prove to the entire world, that there is, indeed, a god.

Loveshismom

Pro

Point 1: The flaws in your conduct

In round two, you only STATED your three points rather than already giving evidence to support them, even though you made the arguments up to eight-thousand characters. That is poor conduct. You also claim on your profile that you are 99 years old, but you gave a college professor argument in round three. That is dishonest and stealthy. You apparently deliberately lured me into this unfair trap.

Point 2: your argument does not completely prove that Tacitus was unreliable. While other people started new religions and were crucified like Him, Jesus was the most famous of them all. That makes it more likely that he was referring to Jesus. as for not specifically using his name? He may have never found any record of what Jesus' name was, thereby not knowing it. Also, he could have heard it from a friend (I will refer to this philosophical friend of Tacitus as friend A) who either told him the story of Jesus from another source or heard from his mother or father. Friend A additionally may have heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend, and so on and so on. And/or Tacitus could have been trying to be mysterious to make his documents less boring. The same logic is applicable to all of the other historians I mentioned in round 2. Besides, if Jesus was never crucified, then what other time system is eligible for knowing what year it is?

Point 3: your source refuting the first part of my third point completely drops the fact that all information comes from preexisting information. And as I stated earlier, because that is the case, our DNA's info is so intelligent that it screams "God is real!" into every face that looks at it.

Point 4: Not everything in the Bible is literal. As for 1KI 4:26 and 2CH 9:25, one of them could be figurative. As I stated in the comments section, the numbers in the Bible are placed where they are for easy citation, not for the reader to interpret. You said it yourself, "simple numbers are not open to interpretation."

Point 5: "I would invite my opponent to go to a scientist and under laboratory conditions, 'do it right'. Then he can collect his Nobel Prize and prove to the entire world, that there is, indeed, a god."

I will do that ASAP and then let you know what happened in the comments section.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
It's not an excuse you're getting it all wrong.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
Excuses
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
@ Ragnar, "there was no video posted in the debate."

I was talking about the video nonprophet posted in the comments after I asked him what he meant when he said "contradictions" in round 2. Sorry for not being more clear about that.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
Turns out I can't do that without some scientists spying on me and waiting for something to happen that would prove the existence of God. That would be putting God in a box.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
I'm still waiting for Loveshismom's scientific results from "doing it right".
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
@Saska, my argument was not a personal attack on Con. It was just an argument.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
"I'll debate you on this one sentence alone"
No you won't. You are blocked.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
"The Miller/Urey Experiment explains exactly how DNA can come about by itself". completely fallacious and unsupported by any scientific data and critical thinking. I'll debate you on this one sentence alone.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
Thank you so much for voting against me, Wylted!

Now that I know debating is just about who the biggest BS artist is, my goal is to have the biggest losing record ever!
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I meant con.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
nonprophetLoveshismomTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarized
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
nonprophetLoveshismomTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was much more convincing. It is clear that even Pro agrees with that, considering his opening statements in round three were a personal attack on Con. Not using all of the characters and not putting an accurate age on personal profile? That would be grasping at straws. The fact is, there is no real evidence to prove the Christian God real and Con's arguments were convincing here.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
nonprophetLoveshismomTied
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: RFD in comments...