The Instigator
FMAlchemist
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
BrutalB
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

The Biblical God is more credible than the other religions' gods.

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 6 votes the winner is...
FMAlchemist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,930 times Debate No: 60654
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (55)
Votes (6)

 

FMAlchemist

Con

I saw you didn't figure out how to challenge me so i'm challenging you. In this debate you hold the position that your God is more credible than the other religions' gods making your beliefs justifiable by reason and i must rebut your arguments while showing why i don't think the bible and Christianity is more credible than the other religions. You hold the BoP. First round is for arguments,second is for arguments and rebuttals,and the rest is for rebuttals only.Pro will need to write "No round" in the last round to make it fair. This will be a fun debate,good luck welcome to the site!

Definitions:

Faith:

Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Religion:

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Credible:

Able to be believed; convincing

More:

A greater or additional amount or degree.
BrutalB

Pro

First off, thank you! and let's have some fun! I do believe the Biblical God is more credible than any other religions' gods and that he indeed, does exist. I am new to this site, but have checked out some other debates on this subject and the few i've seen were radical, fire and brimstone type 'christians'. I however am not here to shove anything down anyones throat. I'm just here to tell the good news which is, God sent his only son Jesus down here to earth to be crucified and sacrificed for all of us, and was resurrected in order that we can have salvation, (through Jesus Christ) by accepting and having a relationship with God for all eternity. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Simple as that. Whatever is done with it after that is up to the reader. *thumbs up. Reasons why i believe it to be true.

-True "christianity" is NOT a religion. It is not what the media portrays like the extremists of westboro baptist church and other groups such as that. Religion is governments, and other groups with their own agendas, way of using things as power plays. True christianity, i call discipleship, i like this term better, is about having a relationship with the one and only God.

-The Bible is a story about love. Pure and simple. Jesus came down, lived a perfect life for us and was crucified for all of us here on earth. Despite everyone mocking him, ridiculing, spitting, abusing him, he still sacrificed himself and loved all of us the entire time in order that we can feel the love, be risen from the grave and have everlasting life. Jesus took upon himself all of our sins and transgressions in order that we may have salvation. Now i cant speak for everyone, but i don't know to many people that unconditionally love and would selflessly die for someone else, especially if the people they were dying for were mocking, scorning and violently persecuting that person. Seems like a pretty crazy story to dream up of, especially for a sinful world.

-Second, i'm going to go out on a limb and say that everyone here agrees that it is the year 2014 (AD). We all use the same calendar and time system. And if it's in agreement the year is 2014, well then we have to be counting from something. Our calendar is based on BC/AD."Anno Domini" meaning "the year of our Lord. " That being said, were all timed by Jesus, whether you like it, and believe in it or not.

-Thirdly, geologic and archeological evidence backs up the Bible. Geologically speaking we have The Cambrian Explosion. This phenomenon is huge in explaining the beginning of time and disproving other theories. In studying the rock and fossil records, The Cambrian Explosion is the cause of every phylum and species known to man. The records show there was no gradual evolutionary increase of this. In the rock layers above this, there was nothing, with the exception of a few worms. Then all of the sudden, (hence explosion) the complexity of every species, plant, basically every phyla known to mankind is found, in coexistence, almost over night (obviously disproving evolutionary theory). Science. Now this matches with the book of genesis in the Bible, where God created everything so sudden in 7 days. Genesis 1:20-25.
Now, real quick, archeologically speaking, there have been many discoveries found in the world today from the Bible, buildings, sculptures, burial sites etc. One for example that many are familiar with is Noahs Ark. Noah built the Ark for the great flood in the old testament, ya'll know the story. In genesis it stated the ark settles on the mountain of Ararat in Turkey. Recently the Ark was finally and successfully discovered, in Turkey. "The exact measurements of this were explained in the Bible and are as follows. The distance from bow to stern was 515 feet, or exactly 300 Egyptian cubits. The average width was 50 cubits. " Now this was all found to be exactly true when geologists and archeologists excavated this. Now the Bible was written some 2000 years before this discovery so that's not just a coincidence. Here's the actual article for further reading, A lot of information. (http://www.sunnyskyz.com...-) Now this is all scientific, tangible, irrefutable evidence and proof of the Bible and God.
Debate Round No. 1
FMAlchemist

Con

Rebuttals:

-True "christianity" is NOT a religion

I will disregard this point as he said he didn't use my definition of religion.

-The Bible is a story about love.

The love of the bible is irrelevant to its credibility,and i disagree with it being a story about love. The bible doesn't tells only the story of Jesus,many of its stories tell about genocide(Noah's Ark,Sodom and Gomorrah,etc.)[1][2],infanticide[3],slavery[4][5][6] and other abominable things. And Jesus sacrifice(if it really happened) was meaningless if he isn't in hell now,and even that way it was not needed. First,God is omnipotent[7][8],so he didn't need to sacrifice his son,he could just make it happen without killing Jesus. Also,hell is eternal and Jesus' pain was finite,and he is probably in heaven now,so it doesn't really pays for anything,and Jesus knew he was going to get killed so i don't think it really counts as a sacrifice. Jesus may have had unconditional love but i don't think your God does,unconditional means without any condition or requirement,and to be loved by your God you need to believe in him,the resurrection and that you are guilty of your sins,or he sends you to hell,apart from being omnipotent and being able to remove you from there or not put you there in the first place,and i don't think that act condones love.

-Second, i'm going to go out on a limb and say that everyone here agrees that it is the year 2014 (AD).

I have to disagree with this too. There are different calendars that use another historic events as epoch[9].One example i can give is the Islamic calendar[10],it uses the immigration of the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina. Also,it is completely arbitrary,and it made sense,since at the time that epoch was adopted Christianity was really powerful and no one wanted to read the years based on someone who persecuted against Christians[11].We wouldn't have a major reason to change it now. I never saw a single atheist that is annoyed by the epoch we use.

-Thirdly, geologic and archeological evidence backs up the Bible.

It doesn't disproves evolution,there are a lot of different theories of why the Cambrian explosion occurred,like the increase in oxygen that happened,the formation of the ozone to shield the earth from UV rays,the snowball earth theory,etc.[12],and it doesn't disprove other theories,this is a God of the gaps argument[13],and life already existed on earth before the Cambrian explosion,and it wasn't the cause of every phylum known[14],so who created the life before it?And it wasn't "almost over night",it took millions of years,what is small compared to other evolutionary stages,but it wasn't over night,and in my opinion,it was enough to evolve creatures fast enough to not leave a lot of fossils of transitional species in optimal conditions,with high extinction rates,oxygen,ozone,etc.
About the Noah's Ark,many mythological stories tells about some person that built a giant boat and are older than Noah's story,like the ancient Greek myths[15] or the Gilgamesh flood myth,so i don't think Noah's Ark is credible,the similarities are incredible,and the stories are older. Also,this seems cherry-picked,i googled i didn't found anyone scientifically proved that was an ark and the one of the bible,then i headed to wikipedia and found out that after expeditions and tests it was disproved[17][18]:

"In the 1980s and 1990s the Durupınar site was heavily promoted by Ron Wyatt. It receives a steady stream of visitors and according to the local authorities a nearby mountain is called "Mount Cudi" (or Judi), making it one of about five Mount Judis in the land of Kurdistan. Geologists have identified the Durupınar site as a natural formation,but Wyatt's Ark Discovery Institute continues to champion its claims."


"After a few expeditions to the Durupınar site that included drilling and excavation in the 1990s, Fasold began to have doubts that the Durupınar formation was Noah's ark. He visited the site in September 1994 with Australian geologist Ian Plimer and concluded that the structure was not a boat.He surmised that ancient peoples had erroneously believed the site was the ark.In 1996, Fasold co-wrote a paper with geologist Lorence Collins titled "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure" which concluded that the boat-shaped formation was a natural stone formation that merely resembled a boat. The same paper pointed out that the "anchors" were local volcanic stone."

Arguments:

I will try to keep them short because of the character limit.

The bible is not credible

The bible has a lot of contradictions[19],and it was changed a lot of times through all those 2000~ years,mainly in the time the church was really powerful,one of example i can give is the Nicene Creed[20].Wouldn't the word of God be consistent with what it is saying,so God can communicate easily with his followers. God is omnipotent and omniscient so he would be able to make his word without any contradiction,but it doesn't happens,what leads me to believe that the bible was created by men and that they were not inspired by God,what makes it almost impossible to be 100% correct.

God's existence is illogical

If God is omniscient,omnipotent and omnibenevolent,free will can't exist. He knows the future because he is omniscient,if he doesn't he is not omniscient,so he would be able to know every action of everyone,so how can free will exist?Also,if he knows every action of every person before they do it,why he create Adam and Even if he knew they were going to sin,or why he would create them,and punish them because he created them,or why he would create Lucifer if he knew he was going to be betrayed?Why would God do this if he is omnibenevolent,why would he create someone just to go to hell even knowing that creating them would lead to it?And wouldn't an omnibenevolent God create evil?If he didn't,why not prevent it?

Sources:

[1]: https://www.biblegateway.com...
[2]: https://www.biblegateway.com...
[3]: https://www.biblegateway.com...
[4]: https://www.biblegateway.com...
[5]: https://www.biblegateway.com...
[6]: https://www.biblegateway.com...
[7]: https://www.biblegateway.com...
[8]: https://www.biblegateway.com...
[9]: http://en.wikipedia.org...(reference_date)
[10]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[11]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[12]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[13]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[14]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[15]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[16]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[17]: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Ark#Modern_searches_.281949_to_present.29
[18]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[19]: http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com...
[20]:http://en.wikipedia.org...


Well,i see this debate is going to be interesting.
BrutalB

Pro

My definition for religion is:
"Religion is a system of beliefs or a code of moral conduct that judges (qualifies or disqualifies) a person based on their adherence and obedience to certain codes, rules, laws, traditions, or the performance of required acts."

Therefore i say it is not a religion because:
"The difference between Christianity and every other faith in the world is that all other religions are about man trying to reach up to God. Christianity is about God reaching down to man."

Im also not sure there's a point in citing wikipedia, seeing as how anyone can log into that site and write whatever they want but i'll address them nonetheless.

You said "The bible doesn't tells only the story of Jesus,many of its stories tell about genocide(Noah's Ark,Sodom and Gomorrah,etc.)[1][2],infanticide[3],slavery[4][5][6] and other abominable things.

-Yes you are correct, the Bible does speak of such events. These are all however in the Old Testament. Meaning that they happened before Jesus' sacrifice. The Old Testament is filled with these events because it was showing the sinful nature of mankind. It was showing how the world needed redemption and salvation, otherwise it would have continued on like this. The Old Testament portrays the wrath of God against the sin of man; Whereas the New Testament shows the grace of God toward sinners. It shows prophecies that are fulfilled in the New Testament, and gives the history of everything. So stating your above statement proves that the Bible is about love and grace. Thus leading to the very meaningful sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Its because of these events that proved man was incapable of living a 100% perfect life and if that was not possible than being with God would not be possible because of our sin and filth. God cannot be around that because he is perfect. So because of this, Jesus Christ came down and was sacrificed and lived a perfect life FOR us. Through Jesus' crucifixion it washed away all of our sins and imperfections so that we can be with God. He paid the price for us. So it most certainly was needed. That was the whole point of it, in order to show us grace, mercy and love.

You said " Jesus may have had unconditional love but i don't think your God does,unconditional means without any condition or requirement,and to be loved by your God you need to believe in him,the resurrection and that you are guilty of your sins,or he sends you to hell, "

-I would easily refute this because there are absolutely no requirements in order for God to love you. Nowhere does is say that. God's love is unconditional. His love is not contingent on whether or not you love or believe in him. Im sorry to break it to you, but you could be a serial killer, satanist etc. and he will still love you all the same. What you are mistaken it for is salvation. God doesn't send anyone to hell, that's a choice each individual makes on their own. You go to hell if you do not believe and accept him as your Lord and Savior. Even in hell, you are loved by God. There are only people who have accepted His love. Its just like your parents. They love you unconditionally, meaning even when you misbehave and go against what they say, they still love despite that. That doesn't mean that there are no consequences. It's even more unconditional, than that, with God.

You also stated "apart from being omnipotent and being able to remove you from there or not put you there in the first place,and i don't think that act condones love."

- God does not remove people from hell. He gives you the opportunity to accept him and THAT is what removes you from hell. If he were to remove you from hell AFTER the fact, then there would be no point in faith, love, mercy, acceptance, salvation, redemption or any of this to begin with. This is where the Free Will comes into play. That would be like saying "oh, i can kill all of these people because i know i won't have to pay the price for it" God isn't a get out of jail free card.

There are different calendars that use another historic events as epoch[9].

- Simply put, we do not base our time on any other calendar and it's not because people were to lazy to change anything. The only reason it would not be used is because people wouldn't want to acknowledge the Lord.

Christianity was really powerful and no one wanted to read the years based on someone who persecuted against Christians

-I'm assuming that you meant to say, based on the persecution of the christian belief? Otherwise your sentence is incoherent.

there are a lot of different theories of why the Cambrian explosion occurred,like the increase in oxygen that happened,the formation of the ozone to shield the earth from UV rays,the snowball earth theory,etc.[12]

-If this theory doesn't disprove evolution, then why do we not see the intermediate fossil remains from the transition of apes to mankind? and other "missing links" between the layers? Because there are none. You can't refute this because this is tangible fact already proven. This proves that God spoke into existence all of these species. The fossils and records of them were complete, not in transitional phases. Meaning done, final, they were in existence. It was A to B, nothing in-between. Approximately 98% of every thing that had ever lived was extinct when you reach the most recent layer above the Cambrian period. So the increase in oxygen and formation of the ozone, are not the cause of this abrupt, complex explosion of species. And should there had been an increase in oxygen, ozone, etc. which obviously there was because those are necessary for survival. That is because God spoke it into existence. It says this in Genesis 1:1-20 Which just so happens to be BEFORE the Bible verses in Genesis 1:20-25 which i wrote down earlier explaining the Cambrian Explosion. So basically you just helped proved my point! Because when you read Genesis, the beginning, it states all of these events in perfect sequence. Thanks!

You stated "About the Noah's Ark,many mythological stories tells about some person that built a giant boat and are older than Noah's story,like the ancient Greek myths[15] or the Gilgamesh flood myth,so i don't think Noah's Ark is credible,the similarities are incredible,and the stories are older. Also,this seems cherry-picked,i googled i didn't found anyone scientifically proved that was an ark and the one of the bible,then i headed to wikipedia and found out that after expeditions and tests it was disproved[17][18]:"

-First off, mythological meaning imaginary, existing only in the imagination, i.e. fiction. The Bible is not mythology, so that's like comparing apples to oranges. Saying Noah's Ark isn't credible because you "think" it isn't, holds absolutely no weight. "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." Also that site i linked you to, is not "cherry picked" type Noah's Ark found 2014 and you will arrive at this site. Again, you taking your information from "wikipedia" an untrustworthy site, first off rids you of any credibility you think you have. Secondly, no University (higher establishment of education) would accept this as a valid source. If you were to turn this into any professor he would look at that wikipedia source and automatically throw the paper in the trash. Wouldn't even bother to read the title. But i digress, the site that i linked you too shows tangible, irrefutable evidence of Noah's Ark. On wikipedia, the claims of it being disproved are pre-2014 leading to it's inaccuracy regardless.

You stated "After a few expeditions to the Durupınar site that included drilling and excavation in the 1990s, Fasold began to have doubts that the Durupınar formation was Noah's ark. He visited the site in September 1994 with Australian geologist Ian Plimer and concluded that the structure was not a boat."

-This makes me wonder if you really read my above statements. Noah's Ark was not found there because that is not where the Bible said it was. The Bible stated, in genesis that the ark settles on the mountain of Ararat in Turkey. Recently the Ark was finally and successfully discovered, in Turkey. So again, your above quote is inaccurate and can't be used to disprove the current finding, especially since that was dated in 1994.... and we're currently in 2014. Again, here's the site for your proof (http://www.sunnyskyz.com...)

You stated "The bible has a lot of contradictions[19]"

-First of, the Bible does not have contradictions. There is a book written by an Atheist (Lee Strobel) called"A Case For Christ" which proves the credibility of Jesus of Nazareth, and disproves contradictions. It is science that contradicts the truth, not the Bible. Also, you have to look at the context of what's being said to prove contradictions.

You stated "If God is omniscient,omnipotent and omnibenevolent,free will can't exist"

-This is the false doctrine of Predestination. "The Bible says, "The Lord"is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). God wants all people to be saved and does not predestine anyone to be saved or lost. The only thing that God has predestined or predetermined is to save those who are obedient to His commands (Hebrews 5:9) and to punish those who are disobedient (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). "Predestination" accuses God of being partial and showing favoritism, but God"s word says that, "God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him" (Acts 10:34-35)." In conclusion, "If you're not a believer and you dont believe God exists at all, about the only hope you have is that he not be there, that's your hope, maybe he's not there. What were saying is, we trust that he is."
Debate Round No. 2
FMAlchemist

Con

Sorry to be a little late,i'm a bit busy with school.

Rebuttals

-Yes you are correct, the Bible does speak of such events. These are all however in the Old Testament.

But God had no problems with the Old testament as we can see in many parts of the New testament:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17

"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." Matthew 10:14-15

"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Matthew 24:37

Also,most of these events were caused by your God,but he is omnipotent,he could've removed sin in a less painful way. Almost every time he removes sin from the world he breaks his own laws(Thou shall not kill),apart from being able to simply make the sin that he created(apart from knowing all the consequences) simply vanish. How would be he angry at people for sinning if he created sin?The new testament doesn't fulfil any prophecies because it was created to do so. I could say "Tomorrow a giant rock will fall from this building",and the next day throw that rock. That wouldn't be a supernatural prophecy,as it was forced. The New testament was created in a way it would fulfil the prophecies of the first. And the Bible being about love and grace is irrelevant to its credibility. Also,Jesus sacrifice wasn't meaningful. God is omnipotent,he didn't need to send his son to die,he could just make sin vanish. Also,his sacrifice would be meaningless because his pain was temporary and limited,and in 3 days he resurrects. Hell is eternal,unless he got to hell,the sacrifice had no meaning,because according to the bible he resurrects and gets back to heaven. Also,he even knew he was going to be killed. God created sin and he not being able to destroy it just makes he not omnipotent. What also makes him not omnipotent is he not being able to be around us. He didn't pay the price as i explained before and there was better ways to show grace and mercy. What about appearing in the clouds and say "I am the almighty living God and i love you all,and because of this i will forgive all your sins." and then cure every disease and remove sin from the hearts of people?

-I would easily refute this because there are absolutely no requirements in order for God to love you.

God does send people to hell,because he create them knowing they would go to hell in the future,because he knows every outcome of your decisions,and he knows what decisions you will make because he is omniscient. Also,if someone points a gun at you and tells you "Give me your money or you will die!" do you have any choice?Also,i don't think me parents you burn me for eternity for a something limited i did. If parents do punish their children,what i don't think it is a good way of teaching,they do it because they want them to learn that what they did is wrong,but there is no way to learn with hell,because it is eternal. Imagine that scenario,a kid is playing football and accidentally breaks his mom's vase,then his mom puts him inside the oven and turns it on,planning to keep him here for a undetermined time,while she says "I'm only doing this because i love you!".Would you agree with that?

God does not remove people from hell. He gives you the opportunity to accept him and THAT is what removes you from hell. If he were to remove you from hell AFTER the fact, then there would be no point in faith, love, mercy,acceptance, salvation, redemption or any of this to begin with.

So even after a lot of punishment he is not able to forgive people for limited errors,and keeps you there for eternity?It is not a choice,it is a threat. If he were to remove you after the fact you would learn that what you did was wrong,there is no point of keeping you there forever. That' s what a punishment is. Imagine if jail was eternal,even if what you did was only steal a candy?Would it be fair?

- Simply put, we do not base our time on any other calendar and it's not because people were to lazy to change anything. The only reason it would not be used is because people wouldn't want to acknowledge the Lord.

No,if anyone would do that,it is because state is secular. But because no one is demanding it,because it isn't needed and would be hard to put into effort we keep it.

-I'm assuming that you meant to say, based on the persecution of the Christian belief? Otherwise your sentence is incoherent.

What i meant is that Christians of the time wouldn't want to measure time based on someone who persecuted against Christians,the Roman emperor Diocletian[1].

-If this theory doesn't disprove evolution, then why do we not see the intermediate fossil remains from the transition of apes to mankind?

The Cambrian explosion has nothing to do with apes or mankind,it was a lot of time before. You are interpreting it wrong,it just means creatures evolved a lot faster,not that all creatures popped into existence. You will not find ape fossils or mankind fossils in the Cambrian era,because in that era there weren't even dinosaurs. Humans only appeared in the Quartenary period. And the Cambrian explosion doesn't prove God spoke animals into existence,that is a God of the Gaps argument. I provided a lot of different theories to why it would happen,all with evidence,but you just refuted and said "God did it".And apparently your God didn't spoke anything about the Bryozoa. As i said,it took millions of years,not 6 days. Also,genesis say that God spoke every kind at the same time,what doesn't happens,because we can see fossils never appear in the wrong geological layer predicted by evolution.

-First off, mythological meaning imaginary, existing only in the imagination, i.e. fiction. The Bible is not mythology, so that's like comparing apples to oranges.

That's a big claim,since before the bible people believed those stories,the same way people believe in Zeus,Odin,etc.
Also,there was indeed a flood,because of the end of the ice age around 5000 B.C or because of a meteor[2],there are a lot of different stories telling the same thing,the difference is that different stories tell about different gods. What is more likely,that your God caused the flood,instead of hundreds of different gods from other flood myths,or that people though that it was their God because they didn't know the cause and exaggerated the story?
Also,that site was found in 1959[3].Also,that site itself said that Ron Wyatt had no knowledge of geology and that geologists recognized that site as just a geological formation.

-First of, the Bible does not have contradictions.

I would be hard to all the contradictions in that image be only errors in context and i don't think you are able to explain all of them in their context. Also,wouldn't the word of God be understandable from any perspective?The word of God would be perfect after all,and he is omnipotent,so he would be able to create the Bible in a way it would be impossible to interpret it wrong. Also,there is a book written by an agnostic(Soham Jñana) called "100 revelations about Jesus" where he makes 100 revelations about Jesus he found doing his researches. He is also writing a series of books where he researches the entire life of Jesus,and shows how the bible doesn't tell a lot of his life,and sometimes even tells it wrong. He is researching the life of Jesus since 2005.

This is the false doctrine of Predestination. "The Bible says, "The Lord"is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance"

If God was omniscient he would know every outcome of every of our decisions and would know what decisions we would take. If not,he is not omnipresent,so he lied about i,what is a sin. Strange is that the bible also says that it is impossible for God to lie,what is another contradiction,because he just lied about being omniscient,and about bot being able to lie. And even if he didn't lie about being omniscient,he would be lying about being omnipotent,since he said it is impossible for him to lie,but wait,he lied about not being able to lie. In any way,the bible does contradict itself,or lies. Also,if he knows who will disobey and who will go to not,why he created the ones he knew where going to disobey. Isn't it his fault?And God does show partiality,as he only helps people that believe in him,that is partiality and favoritism,like when he helps his people in Egypt,or when he helps his people to get to Canaan. Also,how do you know your God is the right one,what if to other religions,your hope is that Vishnu doesn't exist?You hold the BoP,you must show me what your religion has that the other ones don't.

Sources:

[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]:http://science.howstuffworks.com...
[3]:http://www.noahsarksearch.com...
BrutalB

Pro

But God had no problems with the Old Testament as we can see in many parts of the New testament:

-This proves there were problems.... otherwise there would be no New Testament. If he could have removed sin in a less painful way, then how would it have been truly meaningful? Also, if He removed sin (evil) there would only be good, leaving no room for Free Will. He's not angry with people for sinning, he's disappointed that they continue to keep their blinders on and do not choose to seek repentance from that sin.

The new testament doesn't fulfill any prophecies because it was created to do so

-First of all, this sentence is incoherent. "Doesn"t fulfill" and "was created to do so"? I'll assume what it says and go off of that. So the New Testament was not created to fulfill any prophecies? Then why was it created? Hence words "Old" and "New". By saying that, you're saying "We have new laws put in place, but they aren't meant to change from the old laws". Then why was it created? If it weren"t created to fulfill and change the Old law then it would all just be called Old Testament.

The New testament was created in a way it would fulfill the prophecies of the first.

-So you claiming the New Testament has no point above and then right here, you're saying that it was created for the first. First, meaning 1. Old and New, 1 and 2. So your statements are a contradiction.

. Also,his sacrifice would be meaningless because his pain was temporary and limited,and in 3 days he resurrects. Hell is eternal,unless he got to hell,the sacrifice had no meaning,because according to the bible he resurrects and gets back to heaven. Also,he even knew he was going to be killed.

-So because pain is temporary that makes it meaningless? Then by that logic working out would be meaningless. The pain, the burn and soreness do not mean anything because it only lasts a little while? We know that's false because becoming stronger, healthier, tougher all comes after that pain. Pain teaches you things you otherwise would not know. I've already provided you with why his sacrifice was meaningful, but since you neglected it I shall say it once more. His sacrifice was for all of mankind, so that we would be able to have forgiveness and salvation without being held accountable to living a perfect life, because that's impossible. And how is him knowing he was going to be killed relevant at all? Did that fact of knowledge change the outcome? No. And also how was his sacrifice meaningless since it"s the 21st Century and were all still talking about that?

God created sin and he not being able to destroy it just makes he not omnipotent. What also makes him not omnipotent is he not being able to be around us.

-Already addressed that first sentence above. So, because he "didn't" destroy it, that makes him less omnipotent? If a bulldozer drives by a tree, but leaves it standing, does it mean that it's not powerful enough to do so? No. It means it's a choice. And how exactly does the ability to be, or not to be, around someone give or take away power in which that person possesses?

He didn't pay the price as i explained before and there was better ways to show grace and mercy. What about appearing in the clouds and say "I am the almighty living God and i love you all,and because of this i will forgive all your sins." and then cure every disease and remove sin from the hearts of people?"

-You didn't explain anything, just threw empty statements at it. You say there's a better way to show grace and mercy, so what is this better way? Doesn"t granting us redemption and salvation when we choose to believe in him, despite all the sinful acts against him, show us enough? Him appearing in the clouds? That would defeat the whole purpose of faith and believing. God created humans with brains and intelligence, he also gave us the Bible so that, put two and two together, we could open our eyes and see the truth about him. If there's any reason why that's not understood it's solely based on the individual not choosing to accept that and understand it. Once we accept that we are sinners, ask for forgiveness, and he comes into our lives the sin is "removed" . That changes the heart. Sin is not a tangible thing, you can't just grab it and throw it away. When we ask God into our hearts, he comes in and the transformation begins. Just like when you have a glass of water and squeeze dye into it, it spreads through the water, changing it. Then, when we do sin, we feel it (God conscience), acknowledge it and seek repentance through Christ. Done deal.

God does send people to hell,because he create them knowing they would go to hell in the future,because he knows every outcome of your decisions,and he knows what decisions you will make because he is omniscient.

-Again, I already addressed this false claim earlier. Please read with the intention of understanding. Just because he's omniscient, doesn't mean he's forcefully making you choose what you do. That would make everyone a bunch of robots. I knew the arguments you were going to make but was I the one making you make them? No. And being held up for your money, yes, just like this you have 2 choices. Give the mugger the money or don't. Two choices and two outcomes. God never said both outcomes would be enjoyable.

If parents do punish their children,what i don't think it is a good way of teaching,they do it because they want them to learn that what they did is wrong,but there is no way to learn with hell,because it is eternal.

-You don't agree with punishing your child when they do something bad yet you go on to say punishment is for their own good to learn what they did was wrong. So you believe that we should all stay in the dark and not gain knowledge when we make an error? You don't have to go to hell to learn this. Since God created us with brains we can make a pretty certain inference of what will happen since we have a lifetime of learning this concept. Unless of course like you said, no one should learn this. You don't have to cut your throat in order to know the consequences of that. You can use your own judgment from the lifetime of experiences and knowledge that you've obtained to see the consequences of those actions.

If he were to remove you after the fact you would learn that what you did was wrong,there is no point of keeping you there forever. That' s what a punishment is. Imagine if jail was eternal,even if what you did was only steal a candy?Would it be fair?

-I"m glad you brought up the jail analogy, gives me a better way to explain it different from how i did above. Jail CAN be for life if a person continues to do wrong. If you do some wrong things, you get warnings. If you continue doing them, the punishment becomes more severe because obviously the lesson was not learned the first hundred times you did it. You don't go to hell because you do one bad thing or a thousand bad things. You go there if you don't turn from your ways and accept Salvation.

"The Cambrian explosion has nothing to do with apes or mankind,it was a lot of time before. You are interpreting it wrong.""I provided a lot of different theories to why it would happen,all with evidence."

-You said "increase in oxygen that happened, the formation of the ozone to shield the earth from UV rays" That's not a theory it's a fact. You provided no evidence; I however did by telling how that happened. I gave you tangible, irrefutable evidence that even historians acknowledge; yet you try to keep saying it's false.

Also,that site was found in 1959[3].Also,that site itself said that Ron Wyatt had no knowledge of geology and that geologists recognized that site as just a geological formation.

-Again your site and the correct site are completely different sites. Please, read above. 1959 is before 2014 so that's irrelevant. What they found recently regarding Noah"s Ark in a different place with actual proof is the only thing relevant to this debate, please read above.

Seems as if I do not have enough characters on here left, and the ones I do i'm not going to squander on, in order to refute your continued false claims. But then again, I don't need them because I have already addressed and refuted them and made them clear with empirical evidence above. You're basically saying the exact same things you said above, blatantly ignoring their fallacious quality. Which is telling me that you are not fully acknowledging what is being said. You are talking in incoherent circles in many of your paragraphs.

How do you know your God is the right one,what if to other religions,your hope is that Vishnu doesn't exist?You hold the BoP,you must show me what your religion has that the other ones don't.

- "The difference between Christianity and every other faith in the world is that all other religions are about man trying to reach up to God. Christianity is about God reaching down to man." Just this. Christianity is the ONLY belief where we can have salvation by the acceptance of Christ. We do not have to prove ourselves and live perfectly, which is good since it's impossible, yet in ever other religion it says in order to have salvation you must do good works (who says when you have done enough?), it"s all based on your works and you if you don"t measure up well then BAM! You're out. You don't even know when your "saved" in any other religion until death where you figure out it was false, and by then it's too late. So why is that? Because man makes them in order to control you. To keep you aiming at something unattainable. True Christianity does not do that because it is about having a loving relationship with the Lord. With Christianity it is about love and acceptance. It is a come as you are, with all the filth and sin, and accept him into your life. Thats it. People talk trash about God because they cant understand that
Debate Round No. 3
FMAlchemist

Con

-This proves there were problems.... otherwise there would be no New Testament. If he could have removed sin in a less painful way, then how would it have been truly meaningful?

He boldly states in the New testament that Sodom and Gomorrah will be more bearable than the city in which someone does not listen to your word or welcome you. If he had any problems with Sodom and Gomorrah he would not repeat it even worse. And i already addressed how meaningful the sacrifice was,but you didn't understand. Temporary pain doesn't pay for infinite pain. When someone goes to hell they suffer forever,according to the bible,but if the point was to remove the sin,so we do not go to hell,he just suffered a little compared to the infinite pain someone in hell would suffer,and after that he got to heaven,where there no suffering,everything is gladness.There was no loss.Even his body wasn't lost,because he revived.Do you really think some pain equals the same as infinite pain?Also,why we are discussing if the bible is a story of love if it is irrelevant to its credibility?

-First of all, this sentence is incoherent. "Doesn"t fulfill" and "was created to do so"? I'll assume what it says and go off of that.

What i meant is that the purpose of the new testament was to fulfill the prophecies of the first one,but we didn't testify if the prophecies were really fulfilled,and the testament was created by people who worshiped the old one,and i doubt someone would write the stories exactly was they happened while blinded by faith.

By saying that, you're saying "We have new laws put in place, but they aren't meant to change from the old laws".

Isn't your God unchangeable?Why not create laws that can be used at any time?He is omnipotent,so he would be able t do it wouldn't him?

-So because pain is temporary that makes it meaningless? Then by that logic working out would be meaningless. The pain, the burn and soreness do not mean anything because it only lasts a little while? We know that's false because becoming stronger, healthier, tougher all comes after that pain.

It wouldn't mean anything if to get just a little more stronger you would need infinite pain,burn and soreness.Would you work out if you knew that you would need infinite pain to get just a little stronger,but that by just saying "I want to get stronger!",you would get stronger,tougher and healthier?

I've already provided you with why his sacrifice was meaningful, but since you neglected it I shall say it once more. His sacrifice was for all of mankind, so that we would be able to have forgiveness and salvation without being held accountable to living a perfect life, because that's impossible.

Perfect life?Like when he stole a colt?

"[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him." Luke 19:29-34

Or when he refused to help a woman that bowed down to him crying?

"A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." Matthew 15:22-26

Or when he cursed a tree because he was hungry and there was no figs?

"The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it." Mark 11:12-14

Or when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers of the temple?

"On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts." Mark 11:15-16

Or when he said you need to hate your family and life itself to be his disciple?

"Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26


That's not what i would call a perfect life.The only reason he didn't help the women was that she was Canaanite,but in other parts of the bible he tells us to love our enemies,and the commandments say you can't steal.And some parts show how Jesus was emotional and childish,nothing like the image of a wise man people think of he is.Instead of overturning the tables why not explain to everyone why it is wrong to sell stuff in the temple instead of going around turning the tables or just make some figs appear instead of cursing the tree(by the way,the tree died later)?And wouldn't hate your father and mother go against the commandments?

-Already addressed that first sentence above. So, because he "didn't" destroy it, that makes him less omnipotent?

Because it would be more rational than throwing your son in the world just to die at the cross,apart from being able to remove sin.What about just forgiving everyone and fixing them not to sin before entering heaven?

God created humans with brains and intelligence, he also gave us the Bible so that, put two and two together, we could open our eyes and see the truth about him.

So why not make the bible more clear?If he wanted us to follow it blindly why he would gave us enough intelligence to demand proof for things instead of just believing?

If there's any reason why that's not understood it's solely based on the individual not choosing to accept that and understand it. Once we accept that we are sinners, ask for forgiveness, and he comes into our lives the sin is "removed" .

Why would someone just pretend to be an atheist knewing that what they were denying is true and that they would be tortured eternally?

That changes the heart. Sin is not a tangible thing, you can't just grab it and throw it away. When we ask God into our hearts, he comes in and the transformation begins.

If god is not able to do it he is not omnipotent.Also,the heart is just a muscle that pumps blood trough your body.Why wouldn't a omniscient being have basic knowledge of anatomy?The reason is that people from that time thought the heart was like the brain,because it is only seemingly active part of the body,and because it stops when you die.Egyptians removed almost every organ or the body before burying pharaohs,but they didn't remove the heart because the believed it was where the conciousness was located.

-Again, I already addressed this false claim earlier. Please read with the intention of understanding. Just because he's omniscient, doesn't mean he's forcefully making you choose what you do.

Indeed.But he is omniscient,so he knows what we are going to do,and we are bound by the laws of physics.You don't think about something without external things affecting your mind.

Give the mugger the money or don't. Two choices and two outcomes. God never said both outcomes would be enjoyable.

The problem is that the mugger is invisible,and apparently can't choose not to kill us,while being omnibenevolent,and the only hint you have that the mugger is there is a guy behind you screaming "There is a mugger in front of you!If you don't give all your money to him he will kill you!".

So you believe that we should all stay in the dark and not gain knowledge when we make an error?

No,i believe that forcing a punishment is wrong when a child can think and learn with its own errors.

-I"m glad you brought up the jail analogy, gives me a better way to explain it different from how i did above. Jail CAN be for life if a person continues to do wrong.

It can be for life because the person would not live enough to pay for everything they did,but it is still for life,not eternal,you will never found someone that stayed 100 years in prison!And even if the only thing you do is not believe in God because he didn't gave you enough evidence,even if you were the best person alive winning a nobel of peace you would receive the same punishment as Hitler.

I gave you tangible, irrefutable evidence that even historians acknowledge; yet you try to keep saying it's false.

I will try to explain to you carefully.Before the cambrian explosion happened thare was already life.When it happened not all creatures popped into existence,it was just a period where things evolved incredibly faster,to create more complex lifeforms.These lifeforms were the ancestors of the majority of life in this planet,so when the explosion happened there was no apes,no dogs,no cats,no mankind.Saying that we don't know therefore it was God is a GotG argument,which is a fallacious argument that fills things we don't know with an explanation that will not lead us to anything and that will not prove anything.Saying that your evidence is irrefutable will not make it irrefutable by the way.

-Again your site and the correct site are completely different sites. Please, read above. 1959 is before 2014 so that's irrelevant.

It is because that site you are using is cherry-picking stuff that was alredy debunked a lot of time ago.Also,the post was made in 2013,not 2014,and it says that "In 1959, Turkish army captain Llhan Durupinar discovered an unusual shape while examining aerial photographs of his country.",which is the same site in the site i gave you,which gained the name of the captain who discovered it,Durupinar.

I will rebut the rest later.No chars.
BrutalB

Pro

To close with, i'll list just two reasons, to reiterate better, why I personally believe that Christianity is more credible than other religions' Gods. First reason, it's the only religion with eyewitness testimonies and historical evidence to validate the claims whereas other religions use only miracles to support their claims. And secondly, Christianity is different than all others because:

"Christianity is about what God has already done to provide us the opportunity to be right with Him. Religion says you must earn your salvation by doing good deeds or certain acts and not doing evil. Christianity says all we need to do is believe that Christ has already paid the price for the evil we have done. Christianity says we are all evil (filled with sin) and there is nothing we can do to earn the right to be saved. Christianity says that God (in the form of Jesus Christ) stepped into our place and paid the awful price that had to be paid for us. He gave us the free gift of salvation if we choose to believe in Jesus."

Basically, There is no checklist that you have to perform perfectly and constantly with no end in sight, to reach salvation. You reach salvation through acceptance and that's it. Were all human so of course were going to fail and fall short at some point in life. God knows this, which lead to this unattainable gap to be closed for us. We are all forgiven of our shortcomings if we accept that gift.

It's because of this simplicity that it causes people to misunderstand it or use what they always see elsewhere to try and bash it.
"Christianity, on the other hand, was never meant to be a religion. Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behavior to the glory of God. Granted, men have attempted to force Christianity into the molds and forms of religion. That is evident by all the steeples and sanctuaries and ecclesiastical programs that dot the landscape of our society."

"This expose of religion is in no way designed or intended to impinge upon the reality of Christianity. Careful distinction between religion and Christianity must be made. As stated in the beginning of this article, Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behavior unto the glory of God. Religion is the man-made aberration that attempts to impose absolutism, authoritarianism and activism upon other men." http://www.christinyou.net...

Heaven is being offered to us, not like any other "religions" so why would we refuse this great free gift. We have to abolish the current way of thinking, i.e. the way media, power fueled leaders, religious extremists or fanatics portray it, as a constant law, unattainable goal etc. that we must reach in order to have salvation. It's just not like that. It truly is different from all others because it is about having a personal relationship with the Lord.

"You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: "Love your neighbor as yourself. The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments." ~ Matt 22:37-40

I want to say thanks to all the readers, fellow debaters and FMAlchemist for giving this opportunity. God loves you all no matter what.
Debate Round No. 4
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
GoOrDin
this is a nonsense debate. the Biblical God is factually more credible, but he is the same God... wtf
Posted by BrutalB 3 years ago
BrutalB
"that the world is bad because the first woman was seduced by a talking snake to eat a magic fruit of knowledge(so you can't have knowledge or something?),

The devil said that of they ate the fruit, which God forbid because he knew what was going to happen if they did, hence look at the world. That if they ate it they would become as powerful and as knowledgable as God and satan said that that was the reason God forbid it. That was obviously the biggest lie and very first deception. Because that signified sin and introduced it into the world. Which lead to all the mess we've have sense then. The devil is a trickster and will do anything and everything to deceive all who let him.
Posted by BrutalB 3 years ago
BrutalB
Okay, so provide all the literature and empirical evidence that backs that all up then? You're making all of these claims up without the evidence to back it. However, the Bible clearly backs all of it up. "H.G. Wells, a confirmed atheist acknowledged that the 4 gospels were certainly in existence after [Christ's] death."" What we have now, in the Hebrew Bible was proven to be identical, word for word, to manuscripts discovered in Qumran Cave by the Dead Sea, which were dated a thousand years prior to the oldest known manuscripts (A.D. 980)" That is FACT. and the ONLY one. There is NO other religion or claim that has all of that evidence. These claims of yours are purely mythological which are only recognized in geographical areas, the Biblical claims are universal. There are countless studies that have been done that verify the stories of the Bible. None else. All you have are just mythological stories which you are embellishing. Also its common sense, look at the Bible and all the different authors. They wrote from what God spoke. The authors lived all over the world, different time periods and eras. Some a few hundred years before others and had zero communication. Yet all the books in the Bible are coherent with each other. That would be like me writing something, then 100 yrs from now someone on the other side of the planet, with no communication or access to me, just somehow picks up and writes where i left off haha nah. Obvious proof of the Divine Inspiration son. Done.

And you "see no evidence" because you're refusing to. I mean it's right in front of your face sadly. Born from 2 people. You know how all that works right? You have 2 people that hook up, creates offspring. Adds to the world. So use some basic math skills, and go back through history. Subtract offspring then their parents and keep going and i'm certain you'll arrive at 2.

How do you think the universe was created then?
Posted by FMAlchemist 3 years ago
FMAlchemist
"FM-im not gambling with anything becuase theres no evidence to back any other religion up. "

The same way i can say i'm not gambling anything because i see no evidence for any religion so far.Christianity makes some incredible giant claims,do you really believe everyone was born from 2 persons,and that the world is bad because the first woman was seduced by a talking snake to eat a magic fruit of knowledge(so you can't have knowledge or something?),and that after that the world was sinful,but god sent a giant flood so everything died but a family and 7 of which animal species,because they entered a boat they constructed themselves(even if God could just give them a boat),and somehow they fit all species in the animals in it,and cared of them for a lot of time,and that that family repopulated the earth,and even after that it didn't work because he had later to kill his own son as a sacrifice to remove the sin from the world,even if he is omnipotent?
Posted by FMAlchemist 3 years ago
FMAlchemist
@BrutalB

"1. How many religions have a leader who died and came back to life and was seen by over 500 people?"
Jesus is not unique,and didn't have all those eyewitnesses,all we have is a book of people who worshiped him.I can cite a lot of stories very similar to his,like Asklepios,Hercules(he freaking walked on water!Jesus isn't that original with his miracles!),Prometheus,Dionysos(he transformed water into wine),Osiris(yes,he did die,resurrect and ascend to heaven),Mithra(Had 12 disciples,ascended to heaven and told that he would return,his followers practiced the ritual of the "flesh and blood".He told the righteous would be sent to heaven and the other would burn in a giant fire,he was also born in the 25th of december.),Krishna(wise men where guided to him by an star and after his birth the ruler of the area wanted him dead and searched for him,but his parents where warned to flee over the river with the child.His adoptive father was a carpenter.He was also the mediator between men and God.),Buddha(walked on water,had 12 disciples,one of his favorites was a traitor.His mother was told by an angel she would give birth to a holy child.He told his disciples to abstain from wealth and travel with him sharing the good news),Apollonius of Tyana(his birth was foretold by an angel,his mother was a virgin,he was really wise about religion even was a child,he healed the sick,restored the vision of blind people,raised the dead and destroyed demons.He was crucified,rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples to prove he was alive,then ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of his father.He was know as the "Son of God"),and all those i cited lived before Jesus.
Posted by BrutalB 3 years ago
BrutalB
Plus i just gave you more reasons why Christianity is far more credible my friend. So how about you tell me what exactly your basing your disbelief on?
Posted by BrutalB 3 years ago
BrutalB
FM-im not gambling with anything becuase theres no evidence to back any other religion up. And im assuming he got his vote denied seeing as how he was bombing and voted for you in areas that were inaccurate. As well as his other voting history. Least thats what i think happens on this site.
Posted by TheQuestion 3 years ago
TheQuestion
Lol!
Posted by FMAlchemist 3 years ago
FMAlchemist
Wait,where is the other guy's vote?
Posted by FMAlchemist 3 years ago
FMAlchemist
@Brutalb "Youre gambling with eternity on a hoping Gods not there"

You're gambling with eternity hoping Vishnu or Allah is not there!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 3 years ago
Bennett91
FMAlchemistBrutalBTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: In order for Pro to be able to show that his God is more reliable/credible/better he had to be able to compare his god to other gods and show why they are false. Con argued from an atheist perspective as a straw man while Pro just spouted pro-christian rhetoric w/o the greater comparison between religions. Also "because it's in a calendar" is an ethnocentric argument and ignores the other religious calendars that other faiths currently use use.
Vote Placed by debate_power 3 years ago
debate_power
FMAlchemistBrutalBTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Look, I still side with Pro's opinion, and I still believe that my God, the Christian God, is more credible than that of all the other religions, currently. However, even though my opinion is that way, I still have to give this debate to Con. His arguments were simply superior.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
FMAlchemistBrutalBTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct to con because you're supposed to have no round last round. Arguments to con because he showed a load of fallacies, illogical stuff, and how the Bible failed to show many proved facts of our world as we know it.
Vote Placed by Siladheil 3 years ago
Siladheil
FMAlchemistBrutalBTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to uphold the agreement in the beginning of the debate by failing to write "No Round" in the final round, he lost conduct points. I believe that Pro failed to uphold his BoP, and by doing so gave the argument points to Con. Whereas Pro quoted the bible mostly, I felt that Con had more reliable sources. Wikipedia is not as unreliable as you may believe. It is monitored constantly to validate it's sources. Con, in the future, use the sites that wikipedia sites as your sources and there will be no denying the validity of your citations. Pro had better spelling and grammar due to Con failing to use tense agreement. "i don't think me parents you burn me" is an example.
Vote Placed by Saska 3 years ago
Saska
FMAlchemistBrutalBTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never provided actual evidence that the biblical God is more credible. He makes claims that a Christian might believe, but it was his BOP and he offered no proof of the resolution. Con also used several sources to back up arguments, while pro did not. Ultimately, the resolution remains false in my mind, because Pro did absolutely nothing to prove that his god is any more credible than any other God.
Vote Placed by andymcstab 3 years ago
andymcstab
FMAlchemistBrutalBTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never once assessed the credibility of Christianity against other religions, only trying to assess it against science/evolution etc. Con completely missed the point. So did pro for the most part, but atleast provided argument for the resolution.