The Instigator
Skywalker900
Con (against)
The Contender
NKaloms
Pro (for)

Is there evidence for the god of the Bible?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Skywalker900 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,396 times Debate No: 103748
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (79)
Votes (0)

 

Skywalker900

Con

The rules for this are that you will not post your argument in the first round. The first round is the introductory round for the contenders to get to know who they are talking to. The second round will be the official start of the debate and the third and fourth rounds will be rebuttals.
My name is Luke and I have been an atheist for a little over a year. I enjoy reading texts such as the Go Delusion and find that there is not sufficient evidence for any god, and that the Christian god is a great example of a religion that lacks evidence.
NKaloms

Pro

Hello Skywalker900, and thank you for having me in this debate. I am a Catholic Christian and have been since my baptism. I completely understand where you are coming from. Many times in my life I have doubted God's existence and sometimes I have even wanted to give up being a Christian. Eventually though, I always keep coming back. By examining the evidence I will present I believe that we can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists. I am excited to debate this with you.
May we find the truth by doing so.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
79 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JimShady 9 months ago
JimShady
Continued:

Both of your proposed topics I like, but I'd prefer the second, "Is free will an illusion." I originally had something typed in refutation to your free will comment, but I'll save it for the debate. Sayonara
Posted by JimShady 9 months ago
JimShady
@shannon83:

"I was only making the point that morality itself is subjective as everyone has their own sense of what is moral. I would agree Adolf was wrong though it is because I base my morals off of an objective fact. He obviously did not base his off of the same fact." Okay, understood.

The way I see it, the church should be open to scientifically examining miracles, because if they really are genuine, it will only reassert them. If the Church truly believes they are real, then they should not be withholding them from testing, even if they are sacred. Like I say, if I was the head of the Vatican, I would change this.

So yes, an omniscient God would know the future, and in the same way, without necessarily being a soothsayer, the man already kind of knows what will happen in the future. (The analogy is not perfect to the point of the two being exactly identical, but I think the main focus is perfect). And the main focus is that in order to get a reward, an action must be done. If the reward is given before the action (the man gives the candy before he ties the shoe), then the man may not tie his shoe after this, and so the reward is given unjustly.

You could maybe make the argument that God could give us heaven (candy) as an incentive to serve him (tie his shoe), but again, Heaven is a reward, and naturally a reward will come after an action.

Continued...
Posted by shannon83 10 months ago
shannon83
Continued

This kind of gets into free will as this scenario also suggests that he man(God) knows all that will happen so that implies that your choices have been predetermined and thus an illusion of free will. As in reality what you will do in the future has already been seen and you cannot change what will happen as it has already been done.

Comes down to if god knows what you will do then you cannot change what you will do. As God will always know what you will do in the future. It is like a movie, In the movie the characters have an illusion of free will though in reality a writer has chosen what they will do. If God does not know what you will do then he is not omnipotent.

As for anecdotal evidence yes I would accept a friend saying they found a $50 bill. If my friend said they saw aliens and a UFO then I would not believe them unless they provided more than their word.

I was just suggesting an idea for a debate. It was cut off last time sorry,
"If God is all powerful/ all knowing then the Bible shows he is also responsible for evil"

If it is more interesting we could do is free will an illusion?
Posted by shannon83 10 months ago
shannon83
Hi JimShady " Hope you are doing well today.

Just want to point out the logic point.

A lot of people believe (Pigs fly).
Therefore, (Pigs flying) is more likely to be true.

Its not claiming pigs fly just that people believing it makes it more likely to be true. Just wanted to show that more likely and must be is more of a semantics game as both are suggesting the X proposition has a correlation with people believing it. Since it isn"t a big piece of the argument we can drop the topic.

I agree that just because people believe it to be true or good doesn"t mean it is true or good. I was only making the point that morality itself is subjective as everyone has their own sense of what is moral. I would agree Adolf was wrong though it is because I base my morals off of an objective fact. He obviously did not base his off of the same fact.

While I would agree the Eucharistic miracle could be possible I would say it is improbable. I also agree the Church should allow inspection of claimed artifacts. Though I don"t see them ever doing it as it is much more lucrative for them if people would just believe. If Science looks at it and says it is fraudulent or fake then the Church would no longer have this to fall back on. It would be a big risk for them with very little reward.

I am going to lump this together, The problem I see with the analogy is a small one. You said "the man knows his friend will do it" well it is a little more than that. It is there is only one option as this man has seen the future and the friend will do it. It is not just that this man knows it is this man has seen it like watching a movie and then re-watching the same movie over knowing what the characters will do. Why would this man if he knows the outcome force the friend to tie his shoe when he has already seen him do it?
Posted by JimShady 10 months ago
JimShady
Continued

Sorry that 2nd link was meant to be under the 2nd to last paragraph.

"Well the idea is even if people did know if there was a God for sure then they would still have a choice to follow this God or not"

That's the idea, but of course there would always be the stubborn few (Satanists, rebels, etc.)

I have wrestled with the thought of God's omniscience as well... If God knows who will do good and bad already, then why doesn't he just send them to their respective place (heaven or hell)? Here's an another analogy, hopefully this one works:

A man has a friend who is very trustworthy and will do whatever he says. The man says to his friend, "Tie my shoe, and I'll give you a piece of candy." The man knows his friend will do it, and his friend does it. The man gives him the candy. However, what if the man just knew he would tie his shoe, but the friend didn't get a chance to do it? What if the man gave him a piece of candy as a reward for nothing?

My point is that God, if he wanted to, COULD let us all into heaven if that's what he willed, but he prefers us to be serve him first and to be good to one another before any reward is given. To get a reward, something must be done.

I accept anecdotal evidence when it can be reasonably accepted. If a trustworthy friend says "I found a $50 bill!", I'll believe that he found it and didn't steal it. Dragons have no fossil evidence and are physical, so I can deduce they probably don't exist. God, being supernatural, doesn't have fossil evidence, but has Aquinas's Five Proofs, miracles, and influence in my life that I believe enough to feel that a God is not such an impossible being.

I could not find your open debate, can you link it, thanks.
Posted by JimShady 10 months ago
JimShady
@shannon83: Hey partner

The original link you posted me for the "appeal to the majority" logical fallacy reads like this.

A lot of people believe X.
Therefore, X must be true.

This is not what I am doing, I am saying.

A lot of people believe X.
Therefore, X is more likely to be true.

I am not claiming it to be evidence, either. It's more of a tidbit, but definitely is not the backbone of my argument.

People may have a different point of view on what is right and what is wrong, so yes, their morals are different. However, just because someone believes something to be true or good, doesn't make it true or good. Ol' Adolf might feel like it's morally okay to kill Jews, but that doesn't mean it is.

While I admit the transformation of the bread into physical flesh is a harder feat to pull off then the water cycle, miracles such as this have been happening since the 8th century AD and it's entirely possible to happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
As for my analogy, I realize that it's not best to equate a miracle with common science, so I forfeit that analogy to your victory. Congrats.

As for testing, the Catholic Church does allow secular scientific testing such as finding that the tissue was from that of the human heart (on one of the miracles), but being that they believe it's miracle and is considered sacred, they tend to keep its sacredness by not handing it over to scientists for extensive testing. I disagree with this practice, I think they should. But there's a reason they don't.

If someone defines God as not being all powerful, they are describing a false God. Describing something to your own liking doesn't make it true... if I say that giraffe is 1 inch tall, doesn't make it one inch tall.

Continued.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by shannon83 10 months ago
shannon83
Continued

Well the idea is even if people did know if there was a God for sure then they would still have a choice to follow this God or not. The idea that god requires us to not know if he is real or not seems to be obsolete when you point out there is an example of people and things that did know for sure and still made the choice to disobey. I still disagree with the reward and right analogy as If the god knows who will make the rights choices to go to heaven then it is pointless for us to make the choices. It would only be applicable if the God did not know what choices we would make. This would make the god not omnipotent though.

There is a big difference between anecdotal and empirical. I accept empirical as it is provable. Anecdotal I do not accept as it is hearsay and there is many flaws with this type of evidence. If I accepted anecdotal then I would need to accept dragons are a real life animal.
Posted by shannon83 10 months ago
shannon83
@Jimshady

I don"t think you are grasping the fact that suggesting it is more likely because more people think it is true is a fallacy, that I have stated before.

As for morals, if you like a fact or not does not help determine if it is true. Morals are subjective as no two people will have the exact same morals. I can justify my subjective morals by basing them on an objective fact. As for the Holocaust it was subjective as the people that performed it did it for their own reasons. I disagree with them though they disagreed with me. (definition of subjective)

I also do not base my morals on moral relativism. Though the fact that morals are subjective cannot be denied as all the evidence points to people having different opinions.

Now it is very misleading you say you provided evidence. You provided a story with no documentation of any one witnessing or observing the claim. I denied it as there is not enough evidence presented to confirm a piece of bread became flesh. Now the difference and the fallacy you are committing is water cycles can be observed and recreated. If you wanted to you could perform the experiments documented and see for yourself that water changes into ice or steam. Now since you are equating the two give me an experiment to change bread into flesh so we can recreate. As you are suggesting you can easily confirm and recreate this event just like I could with the water. That is why this is a weak analogy.

As for data for the Eucharist provide it as I have yet to see real data only stories. Please provided the peer reviewed journal, or an experiment I could perform to recreate the event. As for water just place some in a pot and boil it. In an hour of boiling some water will evaporate and change forms. You can see it yourself.

Well really by your definition a God is all powerful. By someone else"s definition a God may not be. I have a debate topic if you want? "If God is all powerful/ all knowing then the Bible shows he is also
Posted by JimShady 10 months ago
JimShady
Continued.

Again, by definition, a God is all powerful. Calling someone who isn't all powerful a god is false. It's like calling a cat that doesn't have cat DNA a cat. It simply won't work. It's equally interesting how you seem to believe a God not to be omnipotent. Yes, God is omniscient.

I did not say that everyone would turn to God, I said almost everyone. There would of course be some deviants from the clear right path ahead. I do not see how this makes the idea of not needing proof obsolete, please explain. So, you say that if God is omnipotent, he should no we are trustworthy and give us heaven immediately. This does not work, however, as you treat heaven like a right, not a reward. A reward is "a thing given in recognition of one's service, effort, or achievement." Thus we actually have to do service, effort, or achievement for the reward.

Why does it have to be a reward, and not a right? Because we are sinners and do not deserve heaven unless we serve God.

If you do not accept anecdotal evidence, then you mustn't know a lot of things. Most things don't have the DNA testing and stats you require.

If you want to do a differing venue, you can start a debate, as I am unsure of how to handle the format.
Posted by JimShady 10 months ago
JimShady
@shannon83:

Yes, something is true whether people believe it or not. But you don't seem to grasp the fact that the more people think something is true, the more LIKELY it is to be. Not that is MAKES it true. You also make a stance on moral relativism, saying that evil is subjective. So you are saying that, it you look from a certain point of view, the Holocaust was good? I'll admit there might be slight goodness coming from it, but the bad far outweighs the good. Moral relativism is just an excuse for bad people to do bad things and get away with it.

If you do not believe in the multiverse theory, then you should not have even tried to defend it as the source of our universe. Also, I'm curious to know what your other theories for the existence of the universe are.

I misused the word "other" when I said other natural phenomenon. I did not mean to say the Eucharist was natural, my bad. I provided evidence that the Eucharist became flesh, and you denied it because you claim bias. If you provide documented evidence for the water cycle, I will treat it just as you have treated mine, toss it aside and claim bias and not enough documentation. As you can see, this is not a "weak analogy." I expect you to be skeptical of the Eucharist, don't get me wrong. What you are doing though is living in an impermeable bubble. I, on the other hand, am open to the fact that it's real... or fake. I look at what I am given, and make a judgment based on the data.

"Well it being really his flesh is a matter of opinion. As I have always seen it as just bread." Of course you have, you are not religious and have no faith and have most likely not partaken in the Sacrament yourself.

Continued.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.