The Instigator
Curt
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Davididit
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

The Bible God Does Not Exist

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 4 votes the winner is...
Davididit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,936 times Debate No: 17523
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (4)

 

Curt

Pro

It is my assertion and contention that the God of the Bible does not and cannot exist. My opponent, on the other hand, will be negating that resolution.

Round 1 is for acceptance only.
Davididit

Con

I accept. Good luck :)
Debate Round No. 1
Curt

Pro

I am looking forward to this debate. Forgive me if I mess up as this is my first debate.

  1. The God of the Bible is supposedly omnipotent.
  2. Therefore, I cannot have any control over this being;
  3. God’s creation has control over the Biblical God
  4. Therefore, the Bible God does not exist

Defense of P1

According to carm.org’s dictionary of theology, omniscience is defined as the following:

Omnipotence is an attribute of God alone. It is the quality of having all power (Psalm 115:3). He can do all things that do not conflict with His holy nature. God has the power to do anything He wants to. [1]

Matt Slick of carm.org admits that God’s omnipotence in its theological definitions.

Defense of P2

How is it that I can have any control over this omnipotent being? He can do all things that do not conflict with His “holy” nature. So, how is it possible for me to have control over him?

Defense of P3

I do have power, or at least SOME power, over God. How is that you ask? Well, his creation can make him angry. Allow me to give you some instances where God’s emotions were toyed with in the Bible.

Example 1: Numbers 22:22

Num 22:22 And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his donkey, and his two servants were with him.

Example 2: Micah 7:18

Who is a God like unto thee, that pardons iniquity, and passes by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He retains not his anger for ever, because he delights in mercy.

Example 3: Noah’s Flood

This is the best possible example in the entire Bible. God got angry with his creation, so he drowned them in a flood. (Talk about an ever-loving God!)

Example 4: Jeremiah 7:18

The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Defense of conclusion

I feel I made a few great examples of how God’s anger and his emotions were toyed with. If God is truly an all-powerful being, is it possible for me to toy with his emotions? No.

Analogy

Let’s say that I claim to be the creator of the universe and all-powerful. Then, I get angry with my creation because of something they done. Can I truly be all-powerful if I were to allow them to play with my emotions?

Analogy 2

A guy whom we shall call 'X', is doing a study on social behaviors, decides to do an experiment. He wants to see the reaction of abuse on different types of people. He goes out on a street to meet people and chooses one guy whom he calls 'A'.
X says some verbal abuse and racial remarks to 'A'. But 'A' is a cool-headed guy and does not mind the abuse. Instead, he thinks to himself, that this guy must be insane. 'A' does not let his anger grow and just looks on to 'X' with amusement and raises his eyebrows and then ignores ‘X’, thinking its nothing to be serious about. X notes down the reaction of 'A' in his research journal and walks away to find another guy, whom he calls 'B'. Now, ‘B’ is a hot headed guy, who can become angry on the smallest of things. ‘X’ calls him some verbal abuse along with racial remarks. ‘B’'s anger shoots up very quickly and his blood begins to boil. He starts abusing ‘X’ in return, making even bigger and more vulgar abuse to ‘X’, telling him to '#$^@ off'. ‘B’ starts coming near ‘X’ and it looks like he’s ready to punch X in the face. Before ‘B’ can do that, ‘X’ runs away for his life and disappears.
His study is complete. Which person, 'A' or 'B', has the greater character strength? If you were to choose a leader for a group, who would you choose between 'A' and 'B' ? The vast majority of people would choose 'A' as the leader, who has more strong character, and has proven to be more resistant to attacks than ‘B’. Let’s transfer this example to God’s. Suppose there are two God's.
One of them is God ‘B’, who is a sensitive God and for him, it’s easy to become angry when a human abuses him. So down on the planet, there is a man who abuses God B. God B becomes angry and he plans to punish the human for what he did. The God plans to burn the human and give him all sorts of pain when he dies. The other God, called God A, is cool-headed and when He sees a human being abuse Him, He doesn't mind, because his ego is not as sensitive as that of God B. God A loves humans unconditionally and infinitely. When He sees the human abuse Him, he thinks to himself that this human might be crazy and he forgives that human. He knows that abuse doesn't affect him. He still loves the human, and he knows that a human cannot harm Him in any way. When the human will die, he will see for himself, how loving God is.
So God A says to himself: “Never mind, he's a human, my loved creation, it doesn’t matter to me if he believes in me or not. His belief or disbelief does not affect ME because I have infinite power over all things. I cannot be affected by even a million black holes, let alone a 65 kg 5’6” tall human, who will live only 70 years.” Which of the Gods, A or B, is more strong and loving? Which of God do you think rules the universe?
A large majority of the people would choose God 'A', the one who is not affected by human abuse or love and loves his creation infinitely. If God is infinite in power, he is infinite in strength of personal character. If God can become angry due to a human abusing him, the rule of God being the strongest entity is violated. [2]

Source:

  1. http://carm.org...
  2. The second analogy is attributed to http://apostatesofislam.com... revisions have been made to fit this argument.

Davididit

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for offering this challenge and I look forward to having a rational discussion about the existence of the Christian God.

Immediately, there are problems with my opponent's syllogism. He provides an invalid argument, which is therefore unsound. Premise 2 clearly does not follow from the first premise. Given the definition of omnipotence, how does it follow that one cannot have control over God because of that? Moreover, there are unstated premises in my opponent's argument and his conclusion does not follow at all given his current premises. Though I can understand what my opponent is getting at, his argument itself does not do the job. At best what my opponent was attempting to show was that God is not omnipotent. He needs to explain that omnipotence is a necessary part of God's nature and if he can show that God doesn't have that in his nature, then he has disproven God's existence. Unfortunately, my opponent's argument does not do the job.

Here I did my best to present a more charitable formulation of my opponent’s argument

1. The God of the Bible is supposedly omnipotent.

2. If God is omnipotent, then he can bring about whatever he wants;

3. God's creations can frustrate bringing about what he wants.

4. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

5. Therefore, the Bible God does not exist (because 4 contradicts 1)

In this case premise 2 is not true. This stems from a misunderstanding of omnipotence. In addition to my opponent’s definition of omnipotence, I’d like to add clear up what is meant by “God can do anything” and add a secondary definition. First, God can do anything that is logically possible. In other words, God cannot make logical contradictions (square circles, married bachelors, etc.). Saying God can do anything is a bit ambiguous and it can be extrapolated to mean something like God can make a square circle. Philosopher Richard Swinburne briefly reiterates this point by writing, “The analysis of omnipotence which initially suggests itself is that a being is omnipotent if and only if he can do any (logically possible) action.” [1] This in no way impedes God’s omnipotence or makes God any less than He was. This is captured in the common logical blunder thrown at God’s omnipotence: Can God make a stone so heavy He cannot lift? In order for this to be the case, God would need to create a rock that is infinitely heavy in order to defeat his infinite power. This is pure nonsense. Moreover, as I’ve pointed out previously this question is based on a false idea. Namely, that God can do anything He wants.

The Existence of the Christian God

I'd like to now present a positive case for the existence of the Christian God. Here is a simple hypothetical syllogism:

1) If Jesus rose from the dead, then the Christian God exists

2) Jesus rose from the dead

C: Therefore the Christian God exists


Premise 1

This premise appears undeniable. Christians believe that God the Father rose Jesus from the dead. If Jesus indeed rose from the dead, it's evident that it was God the father who did it.

Premise 2
Here is where the real discussion begins. It's highly attested by historians that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person who was crucified by the Romans. [2] Gary Habermas notes, "the vast majority of scholars, both conservative and liberal alike, generally disdain radical theses that question the very existence of Jesus." [3]

There are four main points/pieces of evidence regarding the resurrection: the empty tomb, the existence of the early Church, the origin of the disciple’s beliefs, and the post resurrection appearances.

The Empty Tomb

Matthew 28:11-15, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12, and John 20:11-18 all attest to the empty tomb. Because of such an event as the resurrection, the location of Jesus’ tomb would have been well known. An event such as the crucifixion of Jesus, a man who was well known for his deeds and despised by the Jewish authorities because of his controversy, would have attracted an enormous amount of attention. Furthermore, the Bible mentions the fact that Roman guards were placed in charge of guarding the tomb. This leads us to believe that Roman authorities were definitely aware of the location of the tomb. Matthew 28:11-15 describes the first Jewish Polemic to try and cover up and explain the missing body. The Jewish leaders didn’t deny that the tomb was empty; they simply explained it away by saying the disciples stole the body. Even the given Jewish Polemic assumes the tomb is empty.

Origin of Disciple’s Beliefs and the early church

The origin of the disciple’s belief, post resurrection appearances and the formation of the early church are all closely interrelated. What could account for the origin of the disciple’s beliefs? With the death of Jesus, many during that time period had good reasons for thinking “the whole movement which [Jesus] had led was suppressed for good.” [4] The savior of the world was crucified and killed, taken away to a guarded tomb, and Jewish authorities were out to squander any remnants of Jesus’ followers. Scripture tells us that the disciples saw the risen Jesus. Today, virtually no New Testament scholar denies that the disciple’s believed they met with the risen savior. [5]

There are numerous appearances recorded in scripture where Jesus appeared to individuals and groups—Simon Peter, two disciples on the Road to Emmaus, the eleven, Mary Magdalene, and James to name a few. Jesus also appeared to non-believers such as His brother James and Saul (Paul), who was a persecutor of Christians. Paul had no disposition towards believing the Christians or wanting Jesus to rise from the dead because he was on the opposite side of the fence. Moreover, the fact that the Gospels include Mary Magdalene as a witness adds further credibility to the testimonial evidence, because if there was any doubt that she was lying, during that time women's testimony was not accepted as being credible.

The disciple’s believed so strongly that they saw the risen Jesus that they were willing to suffer terrible deaths for this belief. It was this belief that set the foundation for the early Christian Church. The events recorded in Acts—the disciples preaching the resurrection— are said to have happened immediately within weeks of the resurrection event. J.P. Moreland lends some support to this by stating, “many scholars agree that the seven week time frame between the crucifixion and the first preaching of the resurrection in Jerusalem is historically accurate.”[6] If the disciple’s made up the resurrection, it would have been foolish to spread the conspiracy so close in time to the events since their plot would have been easily foiled by the authorities simply producing the body of Jesus. It would be best to wait for the commotion to die down before spreading the “conspiracy.”

Now, I’d be the first to say that just because the disciple’s claimed they saw the risen Jesus doesn’t mean He actually rose from the dead. What I’m claiming is the events and effects that transpired after the crucifixion can only best be explained by the resurrection of Jesus. What makes the best sense of the empty tomb, the post resurrection appearances, the disciple’s belief and the early church?

So far, many of the objections to the resurrection that I've seen haven't carried too much weight. I will withhold from discussing possible objections so I can allow my opponent to bring them forward.

See comments for sources



Debate Round No. 2
Curt

Pro

Curt forfeited this round.
Davididit

Con

All arguments extended
Debate Round No. 3
Curt

Pro

Curt forfeited this round.
Davididit

Con

All arguments extended.....again.
Debate Round No. 4
Curt

Pro

Curt forfeited this round.
Davididit

Con

arguments extended. Pro forfeited.

Vote con :)
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Davididit 6 years ago
Davididit
Yeah....i was really looking forward to a rational discussion...*sigh*
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
curt's most likely going to forfeit. What a shame.
Posted by Davididit 6 years ago
Davididit
Looking forward to it.
Posted by Curt 6 years ago
Curt
Great round. con. I'll type up my objections tomorrow.
Posted by Davididit 6 years ago
Davididit
round 2*
Posted by Davididit 6 years ago
Davididit
I had no room so here are my sources for round 1:
[1] Swinburne, Richard. "Omnipotence." American Philosophical Quarterly 10.3 (1973): 231-237. JSTOR. Web. 17 July 2011.

[2] Habermas, Gary. "Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic." Dr. Gary R. Habermas - Online Resource for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 July 2011. <http://www.garyhabermas.com...;.

[3] Habermas, Gary. "A Summary Critique: Questioning the Existence of Jesus." Dr. Gary R. Habermas - Online Resource for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 July 2011. <http://www.garyhabermas.com...;.

[4] Bruce, F. F.. New Testament history . [1st U.S. ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 19711969. Print.

[5] Habermas, Gary. "Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic." Dr. Gary R. Habermas - Online Resource for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 July 2011. <http://www.garyhabermas.com...;.

[6] Moreland, James Porter. Scaling the secular city: a defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1987. Print.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Welcome back Kohai.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Welcome back Kohai.
Posted by Davididit 6 years ago
Davididit
Will you quit deactivating your account? Sheesh.
Posted by Curt 6 years ago
Curt
Ok *Haha, nice sarcasm*
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
CurtDavididitTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not forfeit, and gave an argument that went unrefuted.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
CurtDavididitTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism FF=Loss
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
CurtDavididitTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits, again.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 6 years ago
KRFournier
CurtDavididitTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits. All points to Con.