The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

Judaism Is More Likely to be True Than False

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,160 times Debate No: 19453
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)





This debate is for the Socialpinko ELO Tournament Round 1. In this debate, I will argue for the validity of the Tanakh, and thus, the validity of Judaism.


The Jewish faith is more than likely to be tue than false due to the miracuous revelation at Mount Sinai and the fulfillment of prophecy, which is available for the world to see.


Tanakh: The 39 books of the Hebrew Bibe (or the "Old Testament" if you prefer).

Judaism: The Jewish faith.

More likely: Greater than 50%


I. Rounds

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: 1st Rebuttals
Round 4: 2nd Rebuttals.

II. Technical

A. Voting

Please read the entire debate before voting.

Conduct: A violation of any rule results in an automatic conduct loss of the conduct vote.

Spelling: I am not too picky about spelling; but please spell appropriately. Points may be awarded for superb spelling/grammar and/or structure.

Please post a detaied RFD. An RFD that may be deemed a "vote bomb" may be nullified.

B. Attacks

A display of any anti-sematic behaviour, or behaviour that constitutes ad hom. attacks will result in an automatic loss.

C. Sources

Please do not plagarise. Plagarism is an automatic loss.

D. Forfeiting.

If you desire to resign the debate, please do so honorably---do not troll or prolong the debate.

E. Structure

The arguments should be clear and easy to follow. Please tag the arguments (i.e,, contention 1; premise 1 etc.)

III. Acceptance

In round 1, please post that you have read and agree to abide by the rules to the debate. Moreover, you are more than welcome to post your thesis and/or any other definitions you see fit.

You may post a summary of your arguments.

IV. Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is shared. I must prove that Judaism is more likey (50%+) to be true than false. My partner must show the opposite.

Good luck!



I will accept this debate, noting the following:

Mr. Infidel must in his first round state what he believes the core tenets of Judaism are, the tenets he must adhere to during this round.

I ask this for clarity and to prevent chasing a "moving target;" I dont want to be making arguments only to be met with a response of "Well that isnt the Judaism I advocate" or the like.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate.

I. What I advocate.

"Mr. Infidel must in his first round state what he believes the core tenets of Judaism are, the tenets he must adhere to during this round."

The core of Judaism rests in the 13 principles of the Jewish faith. [1] Those 13 principles are found in source 1.

Remember that I must prove that the Tanakh is true and that the basis for believing those 13 principles are sound and valid.

II. Origin of Judaism

This is the fundamental key to my argument. I will argue that the origin of Judaism proves that there is a rational basis to believing that Judaism is most likely true than false.

A. The Anti-conspiracy principle.

[Moses told the Israelites]: ‘Only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld. Do not remove this memory from your heart all the days of your life. Teach your children and your children’s children about the day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horev [Mount Sinai]...

God spoke to you from the midst of the fire, you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. He told you of His covenant, instructing you to keep the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets.’ (Deut.4:9-13)

‘You have been shown in order to know that God, He is the Supreme Being. There is none besides Him. From heaven he let you hear His voice in order to teach you, and on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words amid the fire.’ (Deut. 4:32-36)

Moses called all of Israel and said to them: ‘Hear, O Israel, the decrees and the ordinances that I speak in your ears today—learn them, and be careful to perform them. The Lord your God sealed a covenant with us at Horev [Mount Sinai]. Not with our forefathers did God seal this covenant, but with us—we who are here, all of us alive today. Face to face did God speak with you on the mountain from amid the fire.’ (Deut. 5:1-4)

From these verses, we can glean that ALL of Israel (about 3,000,000 people) heard G-d speak. According to the anti-conspiracy principle, the majority of people tell the truth the majority of the time. It is impossible for such a monumental event to have been faked and accepted as part of the Israelite's history for more than 3,000 years.

The great Jewish scholar Maimonides writes: "Israel did not believe in Moses, our teacher, on account of the miracles he performed. For when one's faith is based on miracles, doubt remains in the mind that these miracles may have been done through the occult and witchcraft. What then were the grounds of believing him? The revelation on Sinai which we saw with our own eyes, and heard with our own ears, not having to depend on the testimony of others.[2]

B. History-vs.-Legend

By definition, a legend is an unverifiable story. An example would be Washington's admission to chopping down the Cherry tree exclaiming, "I cannot tell a lie." These are unverifiable because we have no to very few eye witnesses.

History, on the other hand, is compromised of events we know actually happened. It is reliable because we can determine if the claimed event is true or false in a number of ways. Amongst the keys to verification is the assertion of large numbers of eyewitnesses observed the specific event. An example would be the Nazi holocaust.

It is indeed quite absurd to believe that the Jews were gullible to pull off a national conspiracy in the event of the national revelation; but, that is what you must believe that the Jewish people were capable of a monumental and absurd event.

IV. Fulfilled Prophecy

Another key in determining the validity of the Torah is to test the claims made within the Torah and the prophecies therein. These prophecies are not vague and do not require faith (unlike the Christian claims to fulfilled prophecy). Let's take a look:

A. Leviticus 26 [3]

“And I will scatter you among the nations.” – the first exile to Babylon.

“And I will bring the land into desolation.” – the ruination of the Land of Israel.

“And I will bring your sanctuaries into desolation.” – the destruction of the First Temple.

“And I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours.” – the cessation of sacrifice in the first Temple.

“Then shall the land be paid her Sabbaths.” – the duration of the first exile – 70 years – was commensurate with the number of Sabbatical years, which were not previously correctly observed.

“And you shall eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.” – a prophecy fulfilled, as described by Jeremiah in the book of Lamentations (2:20), at the destruction of the first Temple.

A question is now begged, How is it possible for Moses to foretell in vivid detail the history of the Jewish people over 800 years after the Jewish nation entered the and of Israel. The only rational understanding is that this is a true prophecy from God.

B. Deuteronomy 28

“And you shall be plucked off the land.” – the second exile.

“Your sons and daughters shall be given unto another nation … and you shall serve your enemy … in famine and thirst.” – before the exile.

“The Lord will bring upon you a nation from afar, from the end of the earth.” – a reference to Rome.

“... who will swoop down like an eagle.” – a reference to the Roman legions whose standard bearers carried the sign of an eagle.

“And it will lay siege to all your gates, until your high and fortified walls … are toppled.” – the land is conquered, there is siege, and the walls fall.

“The stranger that is in your midst shall mount up above you higher and higher.” – a reference to Herod.

“You shall betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her.” – a Roman decree.

“And G–d shall scatter you among all the peoples from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth.” – the Jew is exiled to all four corners of the earth.

“And among these nations you shall have no repose, and there shall be no rest for the sole of your foot … and you shall fear night and day.” – the situation of Jews in exile.

This is just to hit the surface of what is going on in the text. Clearly, these are not vague and must have been from G-d.

V. Summary

My partner in this debate must show that my arguments are false by either showing a more logical way of the revelation of Mount Sinai and show how the prophecies can be in depth and in detail without the prophecies being from G-d. Moreover, my partner must show how the Jewish nation could have fell for such a hoax as the revelation at Mount Sinai. Finally, my partner must show why no other religion can boast a national revelation.

Thank you.


[1] "The RAMBAM'S 13 principles of the Jewish faith.
[2] Mishna Torah - Foundations of Torah 8:1. Quoted on
[3] "Proof of the Existence of G-d."


The Pluralistic Hypothesis: The great world religions constitute different ways of experiencing, conceiving and living in relation to an ultimate divine Reality (the Real) which transcends all our varied visions of it.

The pluralistic hypothesis maintains that a divine reality exists, that human individuals are able to come in contact with that divine reality, and that the great world religions are human responses to that divine reality.

This hypothesis draws on Kantian epistemology, which claims that the natural world is represented to the human mind as mental categories determined by the structure of the mind. Our understanding of the natural world is then not a perfect reflection of how reality actually exists, but is instead a mental construction of reality that is fundamentally distinct but still representative of the way the world is.

Divine reality is similarly incapable of being understood within the realm of human understanding. Human language and categories are incapable of expressing the true nature of the Real. Religious experience is a function not only of informational input from contact with the divine but also of socio-cultural circumstances and the inherent cognitive structure of the human mind. Humanity is incapable of experiencing the Real in a manner that would convey information about true divine nature. Accordingly, the religions of the world are peculiarly human reactions to contact with the Real.

An analogy to be used might be the idea of color. “Blue” as experienced does not exist in the real world- “blue” light is described by wavelength and location on the visible spectrum but this is not the same as the color I experience. “Blue” is simply created by the interaction of my mind with reality, yet is still a real interaction with reality.

In the same way, the religions of the world represent humanity’s attempt to understand and explain encounters with the divine. We can then understand religious accounts such as the resurrection of Jesus as actually happening insofar as humans experienced these events and these events were real experiences of the divine. These accounts are not “true” though, in that the Real did not actually become man, die, and resurrect.


1) Universality of Religious Experience

Experiences of god, gods, the underlying nature of reality, etc. is found in nearly every society irrespective of location, historical time period, or contact with other cultures. Creation myths, salvation myths, and supernatural explanations of reality exist in every society.

Religious experience in the form of eyewitness accounts of miracles, direct revelation of deities, personal transformation, and fulfilled prophecy are found across cultures.

Examples of Revelation:

-The many miracles of Jesus, performed in front of crowds and reported by multiple sources.

-The Hindu Vedas: Among the oldest religious texts, thousands of years old, that traditionally were divinely orated to mankind

-Buddhist Martyrdom of Ichadon: Ichadon predicted that upon being executed a miracle would occur. When he was beheaded, milk sprayed from his neck. Buddhism was then made the state religion of the KoreankingdomofSilla.

Examples of Prophecy:
-Jesus' betrayal: Zechariah 11:12 - I told them, "If you think it best, give me pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. Matthew 26:14-15 - Then one of the Twelve- the one called Judas Iscariot- went to the chief priests and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins.

-Marcus Garvey’s prediction of Haile Selassie I (Rasta): "Look to Africa, when a black king shall be crowned for the day of deliverance is at hand!"

- Prediction of Ethiopian Messiah (Rasta) Psalm 68:31 “Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God.

2) Transformative Capability of Religion

Examples of individuals with extreme commitments to ethical principles and religious devotion are found in nearly all religions. All traditions contain accounts of individuals with religious conviction drastically opposed to typical self-interest; all traditions show an ability to reorient individuals toward a transcendent reality.

3) Religious Diversity

There exist many religions with mutually exclusive dogmatic claims.


1) Absolutist/Exclusivist Religious Worldviews are Problematic

i) Unjust Exclusion from Salvation

An individual’s religion is generally determined by the circumstances into which they were born, and often these circumstances totally exclude the possibility of hearing about any specific religion. If I am born inChicago, the odds of me being Muslim are very different than if I am born inCairo. Millions of people have been born to locations where they will never even know major religions existed. Exclusivist religion means that the single largest determining factor in an individual’s salvation is the luck they had at birth. In exclusivist religion, salvation is conditioned on being born in the right place at the right time and so excludes the majority of humanity.

ii) Lack of empirical confirmation of any single religion

If one religion were true, we would expect to see some empirical confirmation of this fact. We would expect that miracles happen only for or more often for members of a certain faith. We would expect that a certain religion would generate the most saints. Yet what we see is that miracles are claimed and saints exist in all religions.

iii) Failure to account for above Observations

The facts that religious experience is a universal phenomenon, that religions have a transformative capacity, and that religions come in a staggering variety of theological shapes must all be accounted for in any explanation of divine reality. Exclusivist positions effectively explain observations 1 and 2 for a specific religion but fail to explain why these observations are true across the diversity of religions. Exclusivism is generally unable to explain why religious diversity exists at all- why across the globe different religions keep popping up.

2) The Pluralistic Hypothesis Solves Exclusivist Religion’s Problems

i) Religiously all-inclusive

Pluralism allows that most religions are the result of real interaction with the divine. It therefore allows that salvation is open to all members of humanity.

ii) Accounts for religious diversity

Pluralism is able to account for all three Observations. It explains why religious experience is universal, why religion has transformative capability, and why religions take on the diverse forms that they do.

iii) Pluralism reinterprets Judaism in such a way that it is not “true” in the conventionally understood sense.

Pluralism blatantly violates items 2, 5, 7, and 9 of the 13 Principles of Jewish Faith listed by Pro.

Underview: Why Pluralism is more probable

The fundamental problem with Exclusivist religions is that these religions all share similar strategies in establishing their truth. Exclusivist religions claim revelation, prophecy, etc. as evidence for dogmatic claims. The claims of these religions are then all in competition with each other. It is then not enough to merely show that one religion has valid evidence, but the exclusivist must also account for the evidence all competing religions claim. Pro must explain why all other religions exist and why the prophecies, miracles, saints, etc. of other religions are false.

Alternatively, Pluralism accounts for all evidence in favor of all religions. This means that I could concede that all evidence in support of Judaism is correct and still hold Pluralism to be true. Pluralism then accounts for all revelation and prophecy in favor of Judaism without the challenge of explaining the evidence in favor of other religions.

Comparatively, Pluralism and Judaism both account for the evidence in favor of Judaism, while only Pluralism accounts for evidence in favor of all other religions. By accounting more fully for religious evidence, Pluralism is clearly more probable.

Debate Round No. 2


I. Introduction

My partner has used religious pluralism to show that Judaism is most likely false than true. This is because pluralism contradicts 5 of the 13 principles of the Jewish faith (which my partner has rightfully pointed out.)

II. Rebuttals

A. Observations

1) Universality of Religious Experience

My partner has claimed that the experience of god, gods, and the underlying nature of reality is found in nearly every society of every location. Indeed, this is undeniable and an absolute fact. The fact that this occurs is unsurprising to me, and in fact, in line with the Jewish faith. According to the Book of Deuteronomy, false prophets do have the power to perform miracles and predict false prophecies; [1] however, there is a test to show how we know who is and who is not a false prophet.

As for the claims in Christianity, all of them can be debunked. The problem with the gospels is that they misquote the Tanakh as well as make several historical errors. [2] [3]

2) Transformative Capability of Religion

Indeed, it is undeniable that converts to religion often experience transformation. According to a study that was done by pew research, many new converts to any religion experience a certain zeal that older members do not have. [4]

3) Religious Diversity.

Indeed, it is undeniable that many religions exist with exclusive dogmatic claims. Moreover, all religions are contradictory; therefore, they cannot all be true.

B. Contentions

1) Unjust/Exclusivist Religious Worldviews are Problematic.

i) Unjust exclusion from salvation.

I will not deny that a person's location has an impact on religious worldview. According to John Loftus, this is what inspired him for his work "The Outsiders Test for Faith." [5] However, it should be noted that this is not a problem in Judaism. Judaism is not a proseytizing religion. We do not believe you must be Jewish in order to be "saved." This concept is foreign in Judaism. I will explain later on.

ii) Lack of empirical confirmation of any single religion.

There is a lack of confirmation from almost all religions, except for Judaism. As I explained in the opening argument, the verfication for Judaism is much stronger than ANY other religion because of the national revelation involved. Moreover, it is also clear from the book of Deuteronomy that false prophets can also perform miraces. [6] Therefore, this problems isn't too difficult to overcome.

iii) Failure to account for above Observation.

See above.

2) The Pluralistic hypothesis Solves Exclusive Religion's Problems.

i) Religiously all-inclusive.

As I already expained, one does not have to be Jewish in order to be "saved." Indeed, it has been suggested that it is easier for GENTILES to go to heaven than for Jews to. There is a such thing as the Noahic laws. These laws were given to Noah after the flood. Those laws are for ALL humanity. They are 7 laws sub-devided in about 100; hence, it solves the all-inclusive problem.

ii) Accounts for religious diversity.

Explained above.

C. Why Pluralism is More Probable

In my partner's words, "I could concede that all evidence support of Judaism is correct and still hold Pluraism to be true."

III. The Case Against Pluralism

In part 2, I shall debunk Pluralism and show how it is false rather than true.

A. Contradictions amongst religions.

  1. If there is a contradiction amongst a set of propsitions, then at least one of those propositions must be false.
    1. Religion is a proposition.
  2. The problem is, all religions contradict each other.
  3. Therefore, all religions cannot possibly be true. At least one has to be false.

This is the problem with religious pluralism, all religions contradict each other; therefore it is impossibel for all of them to be the absolute truth.

IV. Final Notes

As I have mentioned, Judaism does not believe you must be a Jew in order to find "favor" with G-d. Therefore, it solves most of the problems faced by religious pluralism.

Thank you.

V. References

[1] Deuteronomy 13
[2] For examples of misquotes, please see;

[3] For examples of historical errors, please see Paul Tobin's book "Rejection of Pascal's Wager."

[4] "The Zeal of the Convert: Is it the real deal?";

[5] Loftus, John. "The Christian Delusion."

[6] Deuteronomy 18


I will begin this round with an analogy:

Consider a tube with an image at one end and a hole for viewing at the other. Three individuals are asked what the image is at the other end of the tube. What the observers do not know is that this tube is in fact a kaleidoscope. The first says he sees an array of triangles, the second a large star, and the third a solid field of color. Now if these three people get together and discuss what the image is, they will find that their descriptions are mutually exclusive and do not agree with each other. They may accuse the others of lying or not looking down the same tube, but in fact they observed the same image. The truth is that they saw the same image and came to seemingly incompatible conclusions, and yet none of them is lying.

In the same way we may understand the world religions as all describing different human interactions with the divine. The religions differ because these interactions took place at different times, locations, cultural climates, etc. Because the divine is beyond human comprehension, religions express their interaction in human terms that fail to capture the true essence of the Real. Yet all realigions accurately describe true interactions with the Real. In this way, all religions are “true” in that they accurately reflect the Real as understood from a particular human vantage point, but are all “false” in that this vantage point is incapable of capturing and expressing the nature of the divine.

A. Observations

1) i) Miracles

Claiming that miracles from non-Jewish religions are attributable to false prophets faces three problems. First, all other religions will claim the exact same; Hindus and Sikhs will all claim Jewish miracles are the result of false prophets. In that absence of strong distinguishing characteristics between miracles these claims are symmetric and yield no argumentative leverage. Second, all religions offer miracles that are indistinguishable by character. All claim healing miracles, supernatural occurrences, and spectacular revelations of the divine. Pro claims that the national revelation atMt.Sinaiis special evidence, but he offers no explanation for why this revelation is meaningfully different from the public execution of Ichadon or the public appearance of Jesus. Additionally, even if theMt.Sinairevelation is evidentially stronger than all other claims of revelation, the staggering number of revelation claims must be accounted for. Are all to be attributed to false prophets? The third problem is in A.2)

ii) Prophecy

It is not enough to simply claim “Christian prophecies have been debunked.” There exists a large body of Biblical scholars that disagree with you, so simply appealing to authority is a draw on this issue. Also, you never addressed the Marcus Garvey, Rasta, or Ichadon prophecies- these are dropped points in this debate so far.

2) Transformation

You miss the point of this argument which is not that converts exhibit zeal, but that most religions are able to produce individuals of similar exceptional character. The same devotion, selflessness, and reorientation toward the divine is found in all religions. This does NOT support the argument that evidence for competing religions is the result of false prophets. You would expect false prophets to produce followers of character that is opposed to the divine, and yet all religions are capable of generating followers willing to sacrifice their own well being for the sake of the divine.

B. Contentions

1)i) I ask my opponent to clarify if individuals who worship Brahman, Ganesh, or do not believe in God are eligible for salvation within Judaism. If not, then Jewish Exclusivism still faces the problem of arbitrary salvation.

ii) This point was intended to target modern empirical evidence. We see modern miracles and saints across religious boundaries. Christian and Muslim medieval miracles, saints such as Mother Theresa, Gandhi, the Buddha all show that modern empirical evidence favors no particular religions. If one religion was true, you would expect to see this reflected in modern claims of religious experience.

My opponent offers no explanation for why national revelation is meaningfully different from any other mass revelation such as Ichadon or Jesus. Additionally, there are competing claims of mass revelation, such as the Aztec story of their migration in which one of their gods instructed them collectively ( These stories all capture the strengths of theMt.Sinai story.

iii) Jewish Exclusivism still fails to explain the huge amount of evidence for a diverse number of religions. Pro has not gone into specific refutations of any of my examples; the closest he has come is an appeal to authority in his A.1).

*I am reordering/naming arguments for clarity*

D. Case Against Pluralism

1) This argument simply says it is impossible for all religions to be absolute truth. This I readily concede. Pluralism does not maintain that all religions are doctrinally true- it does not hold that the Holy Trinity is true or that the divine is Brahman. What it claims is that all religions arise out of authentic encounters with the divine and so contain meaningful descriptions of the divine from a human perspective.

Another way to understand this is that all religions are equally correct in that they all fail to describe the Real but all have equally well-grounded positions that offer genuine insight into the relationship between the divine and human. Thinking about the kaleidoscope, all men actually saw the image in the tube but all men are wrong in describing what it actually looks like.

About Judaism, pluralism might say that the divine did not actually speak to all of Israel at Mt. Sinai but rather that Israel experienced an incomprehensible and inexpressible interaction with the Real as G-d speaking to them. Within their specific historical context, this interaction was experienced by a group of humans as the events described in the Torah.

C. Why Pluralism is more Likely.

First, let me point out that my opponent has ZERO offense in this debate. His single argument D) is inapplicable to the Pluralistic Hypothesis. This means Pro has given no arguments generating doubt about my position. No matter how convincing you may find Pro’s defense against my offense, it still generate SOME amount of doubt regarding an Exclusivist position. This simple imbalance of offensive/defensive argument means that in the context of this debate, it is prima facie impossible for Pro to have a more certain positions than Con.

Second, no matter the strength of the Jewish revelation/prophecy evidence, all competing religious experiences MUST be accounted for. The claim from Pro is that across all time and history, all religious experience has been unreliable with the notable exception of the experiences of ONE small group of people limited to a very limited geographic and temporal location. This amounts to throwing away 99% of religious experience because it contradicts the remaining 1%. Pluralism is capable of accounting for 100% of religious experience. The ability of Pluralism to better account for the relevant evidence makes it a stronger religious theory. As noted before, Judaism is able to explain the religious events of the Torah but must dismiss all other religious events. Pluralism is able to explain the events of the Torah AND all other religious events.

Finally, competing religious experiences simply make Jewish Exclusivism less probable. I have listed many undebunked revelations and prophecies that contradict Jewish theological claims. This evidence decreases the likelihood that Judaism is correct. I have shown that this competing evidence shares many of the same characteristics as the evidence in support of Judaism and so is just as strong.

In summary, Con’s position is more probable for three reasons: lack offense on the part of Pro, greater explanatory capacity, and the flat improbability of exclusivism.

Debate Round No. 3


I want to thank my partner for his well-thought-out rebuttals. I must first start off by saying that I am disappointed in the fact that none of my opening arguments were attacked. Therefore, I extend all of those arguments.

I. Rebuttals to observations

A. Miracles

Non-Jweish religions are not always attributed from false religions. G-d has given us a test to know whether or not who is and who is not a false prophet. (Remember: A prophet does NOT always have to be one who does miracles and/or predict the future).

B. Prophecy

Since this debate is not about Christian prophesy, I failed to give a few examples. I appologize for that.

Argumentum ad populum and I am appealing to the authority of the Bible itself. I will concede the prophecies fulfilled in other religions. Though, I fail to see how that shows Judaism is false or plural religions are true.

C. Transformation

I have conceded the transformation problem.

II. Rebuttals to contentions

1) i) To an extent, yes they can be "saved."

ii) Again, I do not deny the fact that multiple religions make claims with miracles.

III) Case against pluralism

My partner concedes that no religion can possibly be the absolute truth; yet that is what all religions claim to be. Therefore, pluralism has a problem.

Thank you for a fun debate. Sorry, I was not familiar with religious plurality hypothesis so I wasn't totally prepared to debunk every last claim. Anyway, I extend all opening arguments.

Considering that my partner conceded my opening arguments, we can say that Judaism is more likely to be true than false.

Thanks for a fun debate.


My Pluralistic Hypothesis maintains that the major religions of the world represent responses to actual encounters with the Real. The religious experiences these religions are founded on are a result of the human mind trying to comprehend and express contact with an incomprehensible divine reality. The major religions all offer equally legitimate ways of understanding and relating to the Real.

Pro notes that I did not attack his opening arguments. This is because my positions is that his opening arguments constitute a small portion of the evidence that must be considered in developing a theory of the divine. I allow that the evidence Pro presents in R2 is compelling, but I also hold that such evidence is not exclusive to Judaism, but is found across religions. As such, a theory of the divine must account not only for the evidence in favor of Judaism presented in R2, but also for evidence in favor of all other religions. Judaism is then not the best way to account for the evidence Pro points to in R2, but instead we should look to pluralism.

A. Observations

I have ben saying all debate that there are no distinguishing characteristics between miracles and Pro's only response is that these other miracles are caused by false prophets and that there is "a test" to determine false prophets. At no point during the debate did he elaborate what this test was (and so I am not able to critique it), Pro also drops my argument in the previous round showing that the "false prophet" explanation is symmetric and that it is not supported by the transformative property of religions.

My opponent concedes there are true prophecies in other religions.

He makes no effort to account for this from an Exclusivist perspective, further demonstrating the superior explanatory weakness of Exclusivism.

B. Contentions:
i) I am dropping the salvation argument- it offers my opponent no offense and it is not central to my case so I can kick it without penalty.

ii) My opponent offers no rebuttal to my point that Exclusivism would suggest that a single religion be strongly supported by modern empirical evidence but that this is not the case. This is a dropped argument.

iii) Again, Pro has largely conceded all my examples of miracles an prophecy from other religions without providing an explanation for why the evidence in Judaism's favor is unique. Note especially my example of Aztec migration in R3 that shares the same characteristics as the Mt. Sinai story- this point was either dropped or conceded.

D. Case against pluralism

Again Pro fails to put forward any sort of offensive argument, instead just misinterpreting the pluralistic hypothesis. The hypothesis does not say that all religions are true. It is immediately obvious that this is not the case if you jus tlook back to my original definition at the top of my opening argument. Pluralism maintains that the experiences and stories of each religion are "true" in that they describe real human interaction with the divine as perceived by humans but are not accurate in describing the nature of divine reality (just as each of the kaleidoscope viewers accounts of the image were "true" but not accurate).

C. Pluralism is more likely

The lack of offense by my opponent makes the judge's decision easy. You simply cannot win a debate without offense. I have provided a thourough argument demonstrating that Judaism fails to account for a massive body of evidence, evidence that my opponent concedes is real, and also that this evidence contradicts the claims of Judaism. I have then shown that Judaism faces substantial challenges in establishing its truth. On the other hand, I have defended a position which accounts for all of my opponents arguments as well as the contradictory evidence of varying religions. At the same time my opponent has not provided a single challenge to the viability of pluralism.

I have generated a large amount of doubt toward the truth of Jewish eclusivism, while my opponent has generated no doubt at all toward pluralism. This makes deciding which positions is more likely very easy- pluralism is more likely.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
:O! I did not mean to vote! xD ignore that.... i might change it later..
Posted by ReformedArsenal 4 years ago
"And among these nations you shall have no repose, and there shall be no rest for the sole of your foot … and you shall fear night and day." – the situation of Jews in exile.

This is problematic... many Jews who were exiled in Babylon chose to stay in Babylon because they liked it. I find it hard to believe that this is an accurate description of the exile if the Jews were not all flocking back to Israel as soon as they could.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
That was a very interesting and devastating approach, Raisor. Well done to you both.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
I'm not really into religious debates but I'll check this out and see if I can help the tournament along.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
""According to a study that was done by pew research, many new converts to any religion experience a certain zeal that older members do not have.""
Lol notice something familiar Kohai?
Posted by Mr.Infidel 4 years ago
Posted by Raisor 4 years ago
Mr. Infidel = Kohai?
Posted by BlackVoid 4 years ago
Kohai only wrote 4000. I'd think it'd be pretty easy to respond to.
Posted by Raisor 4 years ago
Man, having real problems meeting the character limit on this one.
Posted by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 4 years ago
no problem! I'll be following up on this shortly(:
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: All the evidence cited by Pro comes from within the religion, including the claims of exclusivity. Con's argument that other religions have equivalent claims was sustained. Pro granted Judaisms claims to exclusivity had to be proved by a preponderance of evidence, so the resolution fails.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: f
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate by both. However, Con showed that pluralism had superior explanatory power that exclusivism, citing examples of prophecies and evidences for other religions which Pro conceded. If exclusivism were true, it would need to be able to explain the evidences for other religions. While Pro makes a good case about a "test"(though he should have gone into more detail) and false prophets, Con's pluralist hypothesis explained better the evidence for other religions.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented very strong evidence to start, which ironically backfired completely given Con's enveloping counter-proposal. Con's approach must have been disarming, as Pro did not sufficiently attack pluralism for the duration of the debate and dropped critical points. Arguments to Con, with all other categories are tied.