The Instigator
superbowl9
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
The_Great_Philosopher
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Christian God exists (5)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
superbowl9
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 763 times Debate No: 60420
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

superbowl9

Con

This is a debate about whether or not the Christian god exists. I will be refuting arguments from my opponent, who will have the burden of proving that the Christian god is real.

The Christian god is the god as described by Jesus and the Bible.

Rounds 1-4 are all for claims, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals.

Since I would not be able to refute my opponent's fourth-round claims, I request that they write "no round" in the fourth round of the debate.

You can use any type of evidence, or you could simply use logic and reasoning to make your arguments.

I await my opponent's arguments.
The_Great_Philosopher

Pro

You are arguing against God's existence, so I can assume that you believe in the Big Bang, evolution and humans to be of no significance, or in other words; science. (Don't worry, I won't make round four claims, just maybe make a basic refute)

Let's start at the begging. Christians still believe and value the old testament, so my first source will be form Genesis 1:1, in which God created our Earth and universe. This is reasonably true. Have you ever come across the Watchmaker theory? Here is a scenario: You walk across a barren dessert for many miles, until you stumble upon a watch. A watch in the middle of nowhere. Using your experience and reason, you think to yourself "If there is a watch, there must be a watchmaker". You also admire the mechanics of the watch; The way there is a pattern, organisation and skill required to make this.

This theory resembles the universe and the fact the God created it. The universe must have creator, just like a watch has a watchmaker. The big bang is justified enough to make the claim that it is how the universe became. How can there be order with a big bang chaos? If I was to throw all the parts of a watch in the air, the chances of it falling down and becoming a fully working watch are nil. It takes skill and dedication to make a watch, just what God needed to make the universe. And look at how our world works. The planets spin around the sun in a ordered and predictable way, much like the watch's wheels and springs move in a pattern. And don't forget, this watch has a watchmaker.
Debate Round No. 1
superbowl9

Con

Thanks to Pro for accepting.

No, you can't make those assumptions, because not every atheist has to believe those things. That's like saying, "You're a black person, so I can assume you steal". I believe in evolution, and I believe that the Big Bang is the best model for the early stages of the universe we currently have, but I don't believe humans are not significant.

Yes, I have in fact come across the watchmaker analogy. You'd be surprised how much, actually. There is a large flaw in this analogy: we see watches designed all the time, know exactly how they can be designed, and, if we are skilled enough, even create our own watch. However, we've never seen a universe be designed; we don't know how to design one, and we certainly couldn't make one ourselves. The big bang does not describe how the universe was created; that's a common misconception. It describes the early stages of the universe, inflation, and expansion.

You make one more argument in your last paragraph; that the universe is too complex to form through chance. You use the analogy of watch pieces being thrown in the air and landing to form a watch, which I only find to be half accurate. To refute this example, I'm going to propose my own hypothetical. If you were to randomly rewrite the laws of physics (change the speed of light, remove nuclear forces, even add in new laws, etc.), what would result would be a completely different universe. Nothing would be the same, and it would be impossible for life as we know it to live in that universe. However, I believe that life that is not how we know it could and most likely would eventually form in that universe, just not life as we know it today. For example, people might have jell-o bodies in that universe because that somehow fits in with the altered not fine-tuned and could be random. If we go back to your "throwing up a watch" analogy, this means that the pieces do not laws of physics. However, this shows that the constants and laws which seem fine-tuned and make this world possible were have to all fall into the precise way they are in this universe (let's say the precise form of a watch), as we don't know whether all the constants in this universe are necessary for life to exist. This raises the chances of the watch falling into an "acceptable" arrangement from almost 0 to something much higher. It also removes the need for a designer.
The_Great_Philosopher

Pro

My first round was based on reasoning, and looking at the comments, I can see that you and others are looking for 'evidence' of the existence of God. Did you not hear of the vast amounts miracles and prophecies that have happened over milleniums. They are not only said in the Bible, but happen in everyday life, with enough faith. To believe something so unnatural and bizarre is hard, but how different is it from atheists' belief that our Earth was made from a little ball of gas, which for no reason suddenly expanded and somehow formed the basic elements and atoms, which then formed the universe consisting of galaxies and solar systems, of which one is ours, and then these atoms and elements randomly formed cells, which for some reason combined to make living creatures, who evolved and became smarter, and then they made up a being called God which hundreds of millions of people believe in. Now how unlikely does that seem, compared to a miracle? Do you not see? ( Mark 4:12: so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding). The proof is right in front of you, yet you fear believing something so out of this world, because us humans don's understand it. You turn to something what you think is more comforting that God and religion, that makes sure everything that you see and feel is real.

And look at us humans. The gap between people and the next smartest species and ginormous. Why have humans suddenly evolved to being so advanced, whereas other species are at pretty much at the same level (of IQ). Look at our psychology. We go against nature. We help one another, love, forgive. Where have these alien feelings suddenly come from in nature? If you were to punch me in the cheek, my instinct would be to punch you back, but instead on this occasion I would turn the other cheek. But why? Because we are humans, we are capable of doing things so strange and different to what we see in nature, that we are indeed special and significant. A chosen species made by God, many would say. Why would the people of the old testament, surrounded by sin and immorality, write about goodness and words of God, such as the ten Commandments. Moses new that if he killed his neighbor he could possess all of the dead man's property (survival of the fittest much?) . What caused Moses to not do this, and go against the mainstream? And to this day we follow the ten commandments, or at least some, of which have been applied to our laws.
Debate Round No. 2
superbowl9

Con

"My first round was based on reasoning, and looking at the comments, I can see that you and others are looking for 'evidence' of the existence of God"

Well, logical proofs are good, too, so the watchmaker argument, however easily it may be refuted, is still valid. You can go about this any way you'd like.

" Did you not hear of the vast amounts miracles and prophecies that have happened over milleniums. They are not only said in the Bible, but happen in everyday life, with enough faith."

I've heard of these. I've refuted many of them. The miracles in the Bible did not neccessarily happen; there's no proof that they did. You say you must have enough faith, but I was a Christian for about 10 years, and I truly believed in god, but I've experienced no miracles.

"To believe something so unnatural and bizarre is hard, but how different is it from atheists' belief that our Earth was made from a little ball of gas, which for no reason suddenly expanded and somehow formed the basic elements and atoms, which then formed the universe consisting of galaxies and solar systems, of which one is ours, and then these atoms and elements randomly formed cells, which for some reason combined to make living creatures, who evolved and became smarter, and then they made up a being called God which hundreds of millions of people believe in."

Well, there's this thing called evidence which our worldview has, while your worldview has no evidence. Also, not all atheists believe this.

"Now how unlikely does that seem, compared to a miracle? Do you not see?"

It seems pretty likely if you actually look in to evolution, the big bang, cosmic evolution, natural selection, etc. I see evidence for my beliefs.

"The proof is right in front of you, yet you fear believing something so out of this world, because us humans don's understand it. You turn to something what you think is more comforting that God and religion, that makes sure everything that you see and feel is real."

Actually, we don't reject the god hypothesis because we're afraid (well at least nobody I know does), we don't see any evidence for your hypothesis and thus fail to see why we should believe in it. I find this somewhat ironic, as Christians are the ones who turn to the comfort of "knowing".
The_Great_Philosopher

Pro

The_Great_Philosopher forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
superbowl9

Con

Extend my arguments.

Pro has not upheld his BoP, vote Con.
The_Great_Philosopher

Pro

The_Great_Philosopher forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
Thanks for checking out my debates, and I'm glad you agree, Vex.
Posted by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
I also agree that, debating something that you already know the answer to helps. You can learn more about opposing arguments and from that, create your own rebuttals/arguments for future debates.
Posted by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
I see what you're saying, and I completely agree. Im following all of your "The Christian God Exists" debates, to see if there is any actual evidence for the existence of god.

So far...nobody has made any good arguments. All I see in every Pro's argument is preaching, which is sad.

If I were a Christian, I would say that there is no evidence for God, because if there was evidence, there would be no need for faith, and without faith, God is nothing. (Faith is the spiritual belief in something without asking for evidence).

I still don't understand why some Christians believe that there is solid evidence for God, because they're just contradicting their own beliefs.
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
You're correct, it's impossible to prove it for sure either way.

I agree that there is no evidence for the christian god, which is why I made this debate and keep making the same debate. I want to see if there actually is any valid evidence for god, because I want to show more people that this is the case, and, in the process, learn more about the subject and just what is going through Christians' heads when they defend such a ridiculous proposition.

I think many Christians would disagree with you, and I want to hear what they have to say. Change isn't going to come about by just sitting on the wayside with your beliefs, but by putting them to the test in the court of public opinion, which is what I am trying to get Christians to do in these debates.
Posted by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
I read that. Even still, "enough" evidence means that there is at least some evidence. There is currently no evidence for the existence of god...
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
"Well, total proof is not really what I'm looking for.

It's more enough evidence to actually make someone like me believe that this god probably exists."

-Meh
Posted by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
Nobody can prove that god exists, so this is easy to win as con...
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
Khalif,

I don't take the BoP because I don't have it and can't have it.

I don't believe that there's evidence to prove that god does not exist, I believe that there is no evidence god does exist.

I can't argue something I don't believe in (that's how I roll).
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Superbowl, at least be semi-fair.
Take the BoP and prove the Christian god does not exist.
Posted by Shqiptar 2 years ago
Shqiptar
Con is not arguing against the existence of God, he is arguing against the Christian perception of God. Islam and Judaism does not believe that Jesus is God. So I guess I'm with con on this one :P
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
superbowl9The_Great_PhilosopherTied
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: Pro going for the stereotypes early, forfeiting, and not making a correct argument....yup, con won.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
superbowl9The_Great_PhilosopherTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
superbowl9The_Great_PhilosopherTied
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: ff