The Christian God is as unlikely as Zeus, Thor or Odin.
Debate Rounds (5)
I will keep the same arguments and rebuttals, so that they might not be used again in this debate and so that we might get through them earlier so that we can move on.
**Anyone is welcome to accept this debate, please disregard any rebuttals that I made if you do not intend to make those arguments that Arturo made.**
My opponent had previously debated this. The old debate can be found here:
I am making a new debate for several reasons. One reason is so that we can further explore the arguments that we have made. Another reason was that I had mistakenly made the character count far too low in the previous debate. Also, I'd like to get all of the semantics out of the way in the first posts so that it doesn't bog us down as it did in the previous debate.
In this second debate, I plan to provide a higher character count as well as a define the terms we are using in the first part of the debate. A main problem of the last debate was the fact that we were limited in character count and we could not get on the same page about the words we were using, their definitions. The first debate can be found here:
My argument is this: The God of Christianity (The God of the abrahamic religions) is as likely/unlikely as that of Zeus, Thor, Oden, etc.
Definitions of terms used:
God- The Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, Omnipresent creator of the universe. The causeless/timeless cause of the universe.
According to dictionary.com
God- the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
gods- ( lowercase ) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
The latter definition is the definition that fits Thor, Zeus and Odin. Notice: The definition of 'gods' does not include the term "perfect".
If my opponent disagrees with these terms, let him define them himself in detail.
I request that my opponent define the following terms:
I request that my opponent define these two terms because, his argument is based on them. He argues that science should not be used as a measure in determining the existence of God. He states that this is the case because "God" is spiritual, and science can only be used on that which is "material". My rebuttal would be this: Why is God not "material" but black holes, spacetime, other dimensions, etc. are "material"? What constitutes the difference between material and spiritual? I contend that there is no evidence that anything "spiritual" exists IF there is a distinction between material and spiritual.
Also, I would like to tie up any loose strings in this first post so that we can save time in this debate and not re-hash what we already discussed in the last debate.
My opponent argued that because the Greek gods are "perfect", they can not exist because two perfect beings can not co-exist with each-other logically.
My rebuttal: The Greek gods were not perfect. Nor were the Norse Gods. Mythology is clear on this because of their imperfect actions and personalities.
My opponent also argues that the universe has a beginning, and all things that have a beginning must have a "cause". He contends that this cause must be "God".
My rebuttal: This logic is inherently flawed. I will list my reasons for stating this:
1. Does the Universe have a beginning? Answer: We don't know. We know that there was a start of space/time. We know that, at one point, the universe was much much smaller and is now expanding. We know that the universe originated from a tiny point, a subatomic point. But did the universe have a "beginning" as we understand the term beginning? We do not know.
2. Even IF the universe had a "beginning", does this mean that God created it? There is no reason to believe that this is true. No reason to believe that this is "likely" at all. There are scientific theories on the origin of the universe, but "God did it" is NOT a scientific theory. It does not explain anything. If we presume that "God did it" is a reasonable answer to explain the origins of the universe, then we must also explain the origins of God. We must explain the circumstances of God. We must explain the nature of God. All of these are question marks that pop up when we use the explanation of "God did it" to explain the universe's origin. When faced with two theories about something, the theory that requires the most explanations (God did it) would be dismissed.
Other things my opponent MUST show is that God is indeed the "causeless cause". He can postulate this, but even though it is inherent in the definition of God, it doesn't mean it is true. It is a logical fallacy to assume that the definition of something lends credence to its existence without actually proving that this thing has any of these characteristics in the first place!
One thing that my opponent must understand is that simply asserting a premises does not lend credence to the conclusion. For example, he can have an argument where one of the premises is that all things that must have a beginning must also have a "cause", but this doesn't make it true. My opponent is begging the question here. Another logical fallacy.
All of this is relevant because, in order for the argument to be correct, my opponent must show that there is evidence, or proof, or even a "likelihood" for the existence of God. My argument is that God is just as likely/unlikely as Zeus, Thor or Odin. In order for my opponent to prove that I am wrong, he must show how God is "more likely". He must do this by showing evidence for God.
One last thing that my opponent argued in the last debated was based on ancient philosophers arguing against the concept of the mythological gods. My opponent quotes: "Xenophanes had complained that Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods 'all that is shameful and disgraceful among men; they steal, commit adultery, and deceive one another'"
Ok, If my opponent can use this argument to suggest that the Greek gods are less likely, then I can use the same argument against the Christian God to show that he is also less likely (making him just as unlikely as the Greek gods).
There are numerous documented "acts of evil" perpetrated by the Christian God in the Bible. Slavery, murder, destroying cities, peoples, innocent women and children, the list goes on. Relevant scriptures: Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 32:27, Genesis 19:23-25, Genesis 7:23, etc.
IF my opponent can argue that the Greek gods are impossible because of their flaws, and flaws are incompatible with perfection (Even though they aren't defined as perfect)...Then I can argue that the God of Christianity is impossible because of the documented instances of immoral behavior committed by him in the Old Testament. He is defined as all good, all knowing and all powerful, yet he kills women and children wantonly and endorses slavery and murder and genocide and incest? Impossible.
Firstly, I shall define what I understand the meaning of the terms Material and Spiritual to be as your requested.
Material- being something that can clearly be either defined, described and quantified. For example one could argue that Santa Claus as material as thousands of children everywhere could tell you exactly what he looked like, the aspects of his life and even where he lived.
Spiritual- being something that cannot clearly be either defined, described or quantified. I would consider the Buddhist idea of God to be spiritual. The reason for this is that in the Buddhist faith God cannot be defined or described, it is taught that he simply is (I am not going to be using the Buddhist definition of God, it was merely the simplest way to define my terms).
Now the terms are out of the way I can continue the debate.
The reason that I believe that God is more likely to exist that the gods and deities of myth and legend is not to do with the nature or actions of either parties but down to sheer logic. Belief in the Greek gods has all but died out, I believe we can safely assume this for the purposes of this argument. But belief in God, who I believe has now been a deity for an equal length of time and moreover in a world where it is capable to explain a lot things through science (a privilege that the Greeks did not have), has not been extinguished. Now, this can be explained using simple scientific theory. The Greek gods used to exist, but now they do not. God used to exist and continues to exist. The reason? Energy. All atoms in the universe need energy from some source. Plants run out of sunlight and they die. You take the electron energy from an atom and that atom will lose it's structure and disperse. So, logically then, you take the energy away from a deitific being and then it surely to will die. But, as it deitific beings are immortal and thus cannot die, the question remains what happens if you take away their source of energy? The answer is simple- the cease to exist. They, like an atom losing it's electrons, simply 'disapear' from the universe.
So, we can prove that God exists and the Greek gods do not using this as a starting point. Deitific beings come into existence when somebody starts believing in them. Because to believe in something is to mean that this thing is real to you. To Christians who believe in God, God is very much real to them. It then logically follows that if God is real because people believe he is real, then the source of energy for deitific beings must then be belief. Belief is to deities as sunlight is to plants. Without belief then it logically follows that a deitific being would cease to exist. It also then logically follows that if belief is energy, then the more people believe in a deitific being the more powerful that being is. The Greek gods, at the height of the Greek empire, had a following of say ten million (this is sheer estimate on my part, but the figures don't matter too much). This is ten million believers divided amongst a small pantheon. Each deity in that pantheon was powered by the believers he/she had, and it was through using that belief that they were able to perform 'miracles' (meaning acts of divine intervention, regardless of whether they were beneficial or detrimental to mankind) and it was also due to this belief that they existed. God, on the other hand, is a singular entity not affiliated to any pantheon. He has a following of several billion believers, all of whom's belief powers him directly. It is because of this belief that God exists, and it is due to the power of this belief that he is able to perform miracles, such as the Tsunami in 2006 or the floods in Bangladesh.
The scale of Gods miracles as opposed to the scale of the acts of the Greek gods further proves my point. As the Greek gods only had a following in the millions divided out amongst several hundred deities their individual powers were quite weak; they were only able to perform miracles local to their field (for example, Poseidon could only effect the sea). God, on the other hand, has a much larger following who's belief is channelled soully into him. This is why his power is omnipresent and able to affect any and all parts of the world, regardless of scale or field. He is powered by more belief.
This is why I believe that God exists whereas the Greek gods do not; people still believe in God, so as a being he still has energy flowing through him and he can continue to exist. The Greek gods now have no believers, and as such have no energy and therefore cannot exist.
My opponent defines "Material" as being that which can be defined, described and quantified. He gives Santa as an example. Is Santa Claus "material"? I don't get that.
Con defines "Spiritual" as the opposite. That which can not be defined or described. He uses the Buddhist idea of God as an example. I didn't know the Buddhists had a concept of God. I know some Buddhists can be monotheistic, but Buddhism is typically an atheistic religion. So Con, could you clarify that?
The Greek Gods have faded from human belief. This is true. "God", as thought of today, has flourished even in a very scientific age. This is also true. Though, I'd point out that the number of "non-religious" people including atheists and agnostics has grown drastically in the past decade. (1)
My opponent claims that the Greek Gods "used" to exist but now no longer do. First of all, this is a very big claim that my opponent will need to explain in further detail. Why do you think that the Greek gods used to exist? What evidence have you? Secondly, If the Greek Gods DID exist at once, and if "God" now exists...then their existence is just as likely since they both existed/exist. Thus, my argument would be true. This is not what I'm going for, but I wonder why my opponent accepted the debate if this is his belief. Either way, My contention is that neither the Greek Gods or "God" exists or ever existed and thus are both as unlikely/likely.
My opponent argues that the "belief" in something is the energy source for which allows that thing (a deity) to exist. This is a very far out assertion that will require some further explanation and genuine evidence.
My opponent contends that the God of Christianity has many believers, and since the number of believers equals the power of that deity, God is very powerful.
My question for my opponent is, if believers equal existence of a Deity, then does Krishna currently exist? The various Hindu Gods?
I would also state that the Bible itself clearly states that their God is the ONLY God, and that there are no other Gods beside him. (2) This invalidates your argument. Your argument is a contradiction of Christian doctrine, as well as any main monotheistic doctrine. My argument is that the "God of Christianity" is as likely as Zeus,Thor, etc. The "God of Christianity" is believed to be the only one true God, ever. If what you are saying is true, then this contradicts the entire doctrine of Christianity and is not what I'm even arguing about.
2. Deuteronomy 4:39, 2 Samuel 7:22, Isaiah 37:20, Isaiah 46:9, etc.
grobino forfeited this round.
Eccedustin forfeited this round.
grobino forfeited this round.
grobino forfeited this round.
Eccedustin forfeited this round.
grobino forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
|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:||4||0|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.