The Instigator

Pro (for)

Losing

3 Points

The Contender

Con (against)

SuburbiaSurvivor

Winning

35 Points

The Christian God does not exist.

Add to My FavoritesReport this DebateShare with My Friends

Do you like this debate?No Yes+1

Post Voting Period

The voting period for this debate has ended.

after 7 votes the winner is...

SuburbiaSurvivor

Started:	2/10/2012	Category:	Religion
Updated:	1 year ago	Status:	Post Voting Period
Viewed:	869 times	Debate No:	21058

Debate Rounds (3)

Comments (26)

Votes (7)

Pro I will be arguing that the God of the bible cannot logically exist. The Bible may be used as evidence for either side, as long as the claims are verifiable, not just the bible says it so it must be true. R1 is for introductions only, arguments start in R2. Report this Argument Con I thank Pro for instigating this debate! As the instigator, the burden of proof lies on Pro. If I can refute Pro's arguments that the Christian God does not exist, then I have won this debate. Since the burden of proof is not on me, then it is not neccesary for me to prove that the Christian God does exist, but rather to disprove the claim that the Christian God does not exist. I also thank Pro for making this debate only three rounds long. This should be an easy read for all voters. I look forward to hearing your case. Report this Argument
Pro I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate. I will accept the burden of proof for this debate, but I do hope Con offers some counter arguments. One sided debates are no fun. First off, there is no physical, measurable evidence of the existence of any kind of Creator, much less one specific example out of the hundreds of others. Furthermore, Christianity is nothing more than a combination of several of the religions that came before it, including Paganism, Judaism, Greek, Egyptian, and several more. Also, you can prove to yourself he doesn't exist by asking him. "Wherever there are two or more gathered in my name, there I am among them" Matthew 18:20. The answer is simple. Get a couple people, pray for verification, and watch it not come. Report this Argument Con I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate and giving a response. Disclaimer: When I say "God", I will be referring to the Christian God. To keep things short. Pro's Arguments Pro has basically made three arguments: There is no physical, measurable evidence of God therefore God does not exist. Christianity is a combination of other religions, and therefore false. Based on Matthew 18:20, if two people gather, pray, and do not recieve verification that their prayer has been heard, then this is proof that God does not exist. Pro's Argument #1 This first argument is essentially an argument from ignorance, i.e., "There is no evidence supporting the existence of X, therefore X does not exist". Since absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, we see this argument holds no real ground, and does not meet Pro's burden of proof. There used to be no evidence that a fish could have a transparent head, but recently scientists discovered a fish that actually does have a transparent head. [1] Furthermore, "physical and measurable" needs to be clarified. If by this Pro means the classic "If you can't see, hear, feel, smell, or taste it then it's not real", that is, direct physical and measurable evidence. Then Pro must also not believe much of history, since he was not there to experience it. Now, if he will accept indirect physical and measurable evidence, that is, eyewitness accounts who directly experienced God. Then the Bible is adequate evidence or the existence of the God. There are numerous accounts of God encountering humans in a physical and measurable way. For example, Jesus (who, according to Christianity, was God) healed two blind men in Matthew 9:27-31, as well as healing an invalid in John 5:5-17. As far as miracles that have taken place outside of the bible. There are documented cases in which people have either been prayed for, or experienced God in such a way that they were healed. [2] However, even if there was no evidence to support the existence of the Christian God, this does not help Pro. Pro must prove that God does not exist. Thus Pro must either A) Prove that he knows everything about the entire universe and that God is not a part of the universe or involved in it or B) He must prove that there is some logical reason for why God can not exist. Pro's Argument #2 This is a groundless assertion. Pro hasn't even explained, nor cited a source that explains why Christianity is simply a mix of other religions. Christianity, is, of course, similar to Judaism in that the Torah is considered to be inspire by God. In fact, the only real difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Judaism is still waiting for "the Messiah" and Christianity believes he has come as Jesus. But this is hardly a contradiction. Christians and Jews in general both believe that the Torah is true. Furthermore, similarities in Christianity and other religions does not prove that the Christian God does not exist. Pro's Argument #3 This, as well, does little to prove that the Christian God does not exist. The verse does not say "If two or more gather in my name, I will give them verification that I exist" it simply says that God is there with them. There is no requirement that God must give an arbitrary verification of his existence everytime two Christians come together and pray. Conclusion We must keep in mind that the burden of proof is on Pro. He must prove that the Christian God does not exist. So far, he has yet to do that. [1] (a) http://images.nationalgeographic.com... [2] http://christiancadre.blogspot.com... Report this Argument
Pro First off, let me apologize for how short this will be and for not addressing the points from the previous round, but as my opponent said, they are not proof. They are merely individual evidences that when presented together offer a case. If Con wants proof, then I have only one to offer. The God of the bible is considered to be perfect in every way. This by itself comes with two contradictions. First, a perfect being cannot create something that is imperfect. It goes against the very nature of perfection. Anything created by a perfect being would have to be perfect itself by the transitive property. The second inherent contradiction is the fact that God is self-admittedly vengeful, jealous, and full of wrath. These are not only imperfections, but petty human traits that could not exist in a perfect being. This is why I say the Christian God is impossible, because all-encompassing perfection itself is impossible, especially in a being with so many faults. Report this Argument Con A hearty thanks to Pro for instigating this debate and intriguing arguments. Pro's Arguments Here Pro has chosen to abandon his original arguments for one's arguing that God is contradictory. His arguments consolidated are as follows: The Argument from Imperfection A perfect God can not create imperfection. The universe is imperfect. Therefore, God does not exist. The Argument from Emotion* A perfect God would not show petty human traits. The Christian God is self-admittedly vengeful, jealous, and full of wrath. Being vengeful, jealous, and full of wrath are petty human traits. Therefore the Christian God does not exist. I made that title up. I'm not sure if it's a legitimate philosophical title for this particular argument. Rebuttal to The Argument from Imperfection* The first problem with this argument is the subjective nature of "perfection". Since Pro has not chosen to define "perfect" I shall do it for him. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines perfect to mean: "a : being entirely without fault or defect : flawless b : satisfying all requirements : accurate c : corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept"-[1] I think that combining (a) and (c) gives us the most relevant and accurate definition of "perfect". What we must take note of is how (c) relates to (a). If to be perfect, you must be entirely without flaw or defect relative to an abstract concept, then in essence to be perfect you must meet all the requirements someone creates for you. This is where the subjectivity of perfection comes in. Essentially, to be the perfect a being must meet all the requirement standards of its concept. For example, if Jake's ideal car is a car that is silver and can drive 65 mph, then if he builds a car that is silver and can drive 65 mph, he has built a perfect car. However, if Jimmy's ideal car is a car that is black, can drive 10,928,347 mph and can turn into both a plane and a submarine, then Jake's car is far from perfect relative to Jimmy's concept of what an ideal car is. Now, Jake was the creator of his concept of the car, therefore the car he created is perfect according to his concept of what a car is. However, according to Jimmy's concept of what a car is, Jake's car is imperfect. To satisfy this dillemma, we must either A) Judge a being's perfection based purely on whether it meets all all of the requirements set up by the original concept (the original concept being that of the creator) or B) Abandon the concept of perfection altogether. The Universe is Perfect, And Imperfect Ignoring the fact that Pro assumes God created the universe exactly the way we see it today, Pro is claiming that the universe is imperfect based on his concept of what an ideal universe should look like. So in reality, Pro is arguing this: My concept of what an ideal god would do is to not create things I consider to be imperfect. The universe is not what I consider to be an ideal universe. Therefore the universe is imperfect. Thus my concept of an ideal god does not exist. Here what Pro has done, is prove that his concept of an ideal god does not exist. He has not, however, proven that the Christian God does not exist. To do this, he must prove that the universe somehow does not meet all the conditions according to the Christian God's concept of what the universe should look like. Thus, according to Bible, Pro must prove that the universe was created in a manner contrary to the Christian God's concept of an ideal universe. Unfortunately, Pro has not done this, and he will not (in this debate) get the chance to do so. Thus his first argument fails. Rebuttal to The Argument from Emotion First of all, Pro has given no sources claiming that God is vengeful, jealous, and full of wrath. Thus right off of the bat this argument hold no ground. Since it rests on a purely groundless assertion. However, even then, Pro is arguing that the Christian God does not exist because the Christian God does not meet Pro's concept of what an ideal God would look like. He is essentially saying that a God that exhibits emotions that I don't consider to be Godlike proves that God does not exist. Rather then do this, Pro must prove that God being vengeful, jealous, and full of wrath in any case or scenario is contradictory to the Christian concept of God's nature. Not just his arbitrary requirements for God. Essentially, he must prove that it is against God's nature to be just, since justice and vengence are essentially the same thing. He must also prove that it is against God's nature to care, since the jewish word for jealousy is "qin-ah", which in reference to God means "religious zeal of God for his people" [2]. In addition, Pro must prove that it is against God's nature to care enough to get extremely angry, since wrath essentially means "extreme anger". Unfortunately, as this is the last round, Con will not be getting the chance to do that. Conclusion Pro has proven that his subjective concept of God does not exist. He has not, however, proven that the Christian God does not exist. Thus he has not fulfilled his burden of proof. I thank the audience for reading, and I hope you enjoyed this. I ask that you reward one of us at least one point purely on whose profile picture you like. I just want to say that ninjas are freaking cool, and I think you should give Pro a point for having a ninja profile picture. Ninjas have shooting stars, know martial arts, and have the sickest one liners ever. I don't even have to give you a source for that claim either, because we all know in our hearts that ninjas are mega super ultra legit. But still, for your entertainment. See the video above. So basically please give Pro one point for being a ninja and thus, a boss. But then, you know, give me arguments and stuff so I can win and have my win percentile up so then I can one day join the leaderboard so I can finally have some self-confidence. If you're still reading this, you should know by now that my argument is over, and I'm basically just killing 2,000 something characters I have left. I got asked to Prom! By my really good friend. She was laughing when at first (I thought she was trolling me or being silly but she was probably just nervous) when she told. So at first I was sort of unsure, I mean, she lives super far away and I wasn't sure if she was trolling me. So I said I didn't think so because she's so far. After that she said "it's fine, I gotta go, goodbye" and hung up. But I could tell she was crying (she was kinda choked up as she said goodbye) so I called her back up and said I'd go with her and I asked her all the details and stuff and she was really happy (you know, sending thank you's and hearts and all that). Well, that was yesterday. BUT NOW SHE'S TEXTING ME ONE WORD MESSAGES. Seriously. Now I'm confused. Did I offend her by saying I'd go to Prom with her? Is it bad to say you'll go to Prom with a girl after you said you didn't think you could? Maybe I didn't sound sincere enough? Don't hate. She follows my personal blog. So, you know. You guys are my only outlet. :P Please help. And vote for me. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.blueletterbible.org... Report this Argument

Post a Comment

26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.

Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 1 year ago

No, sir. Send me a debate challenge if you want to continue this. We're on a debating site. It doesn't make sense to debate in the comments if there's a system set up for us to debate already.

Report this Comment

Posted by BloodRedSkies 1 year ago

yet you claim: there's no evidence of a Christian god, therefore he does exist.
you probably believe there is evidence, but this is not 100 reliable, therefore I stick with the most logical: no god.

Report this Comment

Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 1 year ago

We're actually talking now. She's fickle, haha. Thanks for the vote!

Report this Comment

Posted by KeytarHero 1 year ago

Suburbia,

I don't know. Maybe she thought you said you'd go because you felt sorry for her? I don't know much about girls/women so take that with a grain of salt.

Report this Comment

Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 1 year ago

@BloodRedSkies, Pro needed to prove that the Christian God did not exist. He did not do that. Saying "there's no evidence of a Christian God, therefore he does not exist" is an argument from ignorance, which is a fallacy. Since Pro did not prove that the Christian God does not exist No one is afraid of anything. It's not like the church police are making sure we all vote for Christians in debates.

Dave_82, depends on cultural context. If the woman didn't marry her rapist she would never be able to get married, and thus, would probably live a life of poverty without anyone to take care of her. You really gotta read Deuteronomy and Exodus within its context. Most people never take time to do that, and thus, remain offended based on a poor understanding of these verses.

Report this Comment

Posted by BloodRedSkies 1 year ago

Sorry, i'm new to this site and I am not yet capable of discussing as it is done on this site.
I'm very disappointed with the fact that the score for this debate is 2-25. Another proof of how ignorant so many people are and willing to believe anything the power tells you to believe so you won't fear death and the things you do not understand. It's a sad sight indeed...

Report this Comment

Posted by Dave_82 1 year ago

As far as no historical documentation, I'm surprised you even care about that. Most Christians say the bible is enough. Besides, ask most women if they'd rather die an old maid or marry their rapist and I doubt one would prefer the rapist. All that aside, though, it doesn't matter because that is just one of the very many horrible things that God commands of His people that I am saying demonstrates His imperfection. Actually read Deuteronomy or Exodus objectively and ask yourself who is more likely to have inspired them, a perfect and loving God or a sycophant.

Report this Comment

Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 1 year ago

Well, technically he could forgive, but he would still have to punish. I think that overall that's what you have to remember. The sin would have to be punished in order for God to be unified with that person.

In historical context, that's not only a punishment to the rapist (he can never divorce her), it ensures that the girl will always be taken care of. Virginity was a highly prized thing in Israel. It's not very likely that she'd ever be able to get married once she'd lost her virginity to another man.

However, there are no recorded examples of a rape victim being forced against her will to marry her rapist. So that doesn't hold much ground.

Report this Comment

Posted by Dave_82 1 year ago

You are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying sacrifice is illogical, I'm saying it's illogical that an all powerful benevolent being would need a sacrifice to forgive. Also, I'm not saying death itself is wrong or unjust, I am saying those things about ordering people to kill others for things like adultry and homosexuality. Speaking of just punishment for rape, read Deuteronomy sometime. This perfect God of yours says that if a man rapes a woman, he is to pay her father 50 sheckels of silver and she is forced into a permanent marriage to her atttacker. This is the command of a perfect being?

Report this Comment

Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 1 year ago

Dave_82, you contradict yourself. You seem to claim that perfect judgement should mean no judgement at all. How is it logical to assume that a just and perfect God should allow imperfection? If God is the source of eternal life, then for him to give eternal life to imperfect beings would render himself imperfect by connecting himself with imperfection.

Now, you're claiming that sacrifice is illogical. However, if God, being perfect, can not be made one with imperfection, then imperfection must be dealt with, yes? The only way to git rid of imperfection is to destroy it. Hence death. But if imperfection is something metaphysical (which makes logical sense considering the metaphysical nature of God), that it can be dealt with without directly killing the imperfect being.

If a man rapes a woman, what just God would forgive the man without a payment for his wrongdoing?

@BloodRedSkies, Lol, why not just send me a debate challenge?

Report this Comment

12 3 Next »

7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.

Vote Placed by KeytarHero 1 year ago

	Dave_82	SuburbiaSurvivor	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:	-		-	0 points
Agreed with after the debate:	-		-	0 points
Who had better conduct:		-	-	1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:	-		-	1 point
Made more convincing arguments:	-		-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:	-		-	2 points
Total points awarded:	1	6

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro as per Con's request. And yes, ninjas are cool. Con essentially tore through Pro's arguments, although his round two argument was stronger than his first round (trying to argue for a contradiction in God's character rather than arguing from ignorance), but Con defeated the objection.

Vote Placed by Doulos1202 1 year ago

	Dave_82	SuburbiaSurvivor	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:	-		-	0 points
Agreed with after the debate:	-		-	0 points
Who had better conduct:	-		-	1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:	-	-		1 point
Made more convincing arguments:	-		-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:	-	-		2 points
Total points awarded:	0	4

Reasons for voting decision: easy win, easy vote.

Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 1 year ago

	Dave_82	SuburbiaSurvivor	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:	-		-	0 points
Agreed with after the debate:	-		-	0 points
Who had better conduct:		-	-	1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:	-	-		1 point
Made more convincing arguments:	-		-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:	-		-	2 points
Total points awarded:	1	5

Reasons for voting decision: Con rebutted all of Pro's debates. Con but a bunch of unrelated youtube videos, which gives conduct to Pro.

Vote Placed by wiploc 1 year ago

	Dave_82	SuburbiaSurvivor	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:		-	-	0 points
Agreed with after the debate:		-	-	0 points
Who had better conduct:	-	-		1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:	-	-		1 point
Made more convincing arguments:	-		-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:	-	-		2 points
Total points awarded:	0	3

Reasons for voting decision: Con parried Pro's arguments, and Pro had the burden of proof.

Vote Placed by KRFournier 1 year ago

	Dave_82	SuburbiaSurvivor	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:	-		-	0 points
Agreed with after the debate:	-		-	0 points
Who had better conduct:	-	-		1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:	-		-	1 point
Made more convincing arguments:	-		-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:	-		-	2 points
Total points awarded:	0	6

Reasons for voting decision: Pro phoned his argument in and didn't bother to address Con's rebuttals. Surefire win for Con.

Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago

	Dave_82	SuburbiaSurvivor	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:		-	-	0 points
Agreed with after the debate:		-	-	0 points
Who had better conduct:	-	-		1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:	-	-		1 point
Made more convincing arguments:	-		-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:	-		-	2 points
Total points awarded:	0	5

Reasons for voting decision: He had sources hence that point. Also he made very valid points that where not refuted.

Vote Placed by johnnyboy54 1 year ago

	Dave_82	SuburbiaSurvivor	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:	-		-	0 points
Agreed with after the debate:	-		-	0 points
Who had better conduct:		-	-	1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:	-		-	1 point
Made more convincing arguments:	-		-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:	-		-	2 points
Total points awarded:	1	6

Reasons for voting decision: Con dismantled pro's arguments. I kinda wished he could have given some positive arguments though. Pro utilized several fallacies and made several groundless assertions during the debate.