The Instigator
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
BornAgain_Mormon
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

The Christian god exists

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 15618
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

socialpinko

Con

I see that my opponent is new to this site and wanted to welcome him by challenging him to a debate. This debate is on whether or not the Christian god exists.

God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe [1]

Exists: To have actual being; be real.[2]

For this debate, if my opponent accepts, the burden of proof will be shared and it will be up to my opponent to show that the Christian god does exist while it will be up to me to show that the Christian god does not exist.

[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
BornAgain_Mormon

Pro

The world requires that you see before you believe. The Kingdom of God requires that you believe, and than you will see. It is really that simple.
Common sense says to make an accurate choice, or decision, you need to explore all the options. If you do not, you are confining yourself to ignorant assumption.
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Con

I completely agree with my opponent that one must base one's beliefs on all available evidence. It is refreshing to see a theist who does not stick to faith alone. I look forward to an interesting debate. Good luck. For this round I will outline a few basic atheological arguments and then provide more detail in the next round.

I can assume that we agree that the Christian god may be described as omnipotent(all powerful), omniscient(all knowing),omnibenevolent(morally perfect), and immutable(unchangeable).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
A.)Benevolence-Freedom Argument

(1)God is omnibenevolent-Premise
(2)God is essentially free-Premise
(3)God cannot do what is morally wrong-From premise 1
(4)God is not essentially free-From premise 3
(5)God is both free and not free-From premise 2 and 4
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
B.)Creation-immutablity Argument

(1)The world had a beginning(i.e.-The world came into existence at some point. We will call this point T^0)-Premise
(2)The world exists at any time only if God wills it to.-Premise
(3)God is immutable-Premise
(4)God willed the universe into existence at T^0.-From premise 1 and 2
(5)There are time earlier than T^0 where the world did not exist. We'll call it T^-1.-From premise 1
(6)At T^-1 God has not willed the world to exist.-From premise 2 and 5
(7)God has a property at one point which he lacks in another.-From premise 4 and 6
(8)God is not immutable.-From premise 7
(9)God is immutable and is not immutable.-From premise 3 and 8
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
C.)Omniscience-Immutability Argument(Argument against a timelessly eternal god)

(1)God is omniscient,i.e., knows all annd believes only true-Premise
(2)There are true teporal tesed propositions to the effect that certain events and/or times are now past/present/future.-Premise
(3)It would be conceptually impossible for a timelessly eternal being to know a tensed proposition.-Premise
(4)God does not know every true proposition-From premise 2 and 3
(5)God is not omniscient-From premise 4
(6)God is omniscient and not omniscient-From premise 1 and 5

I will stick to these three arguments for now. I now toss the debate back to my opponent.
BornAgain_Mormon

Pro

I disagree with my opponent. Having a blind faith in God has granted me the privilege of witnessing many miracles and amazing acts of God. My purpose is not to break down the omnipotence of God. Or the fact that He is omniscient and omnibenevolent, and immutable. Though through many encounters with Him these facets of His presence have been made a reality to me. Through studious examination of His word these truths have been made known to me.
My opponent is very knowledgeable, obviously, in the nature of the Christian Triune God. Yet with all knowledge he still lacks a personal experience with God. My purpose in this "debate" is not to succeed over my opponent. But to affirm my first statement in R1.

The world requires that you see before you believe. The Kingdom of God requires that you believe, and than you will see. It is really that simple.
Common sense says to make an accurate choice, or decision, you need to explore all the options. If you do not, you are confining yourself to ignorant assumption.
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Con

I provided 3 reasons why the Christian god cannot exist. My opponent did not respond, so I extend all arguments to the next round.

VoteCon
BornAgain_Mormon

Pro

And I will provide one reason why He must exist. His faithfulness. The God of the universe will show up when you call on Him. When you have faith! Remember, you must believe, than you will see.
My opponent wishes to speak of the all encompassing traits and characters of an indescribable God. That is why he fails to grasp the truth about our Lord. My opponent is very informational in approach to life, apparent in his previous statements in R1-R3. So my next move is to bring unrefutable evidence that must be observed.

-The Bible is the best selling book of all time. #1 seller in every generation.
-Translated in 12,000 languages
-The most smuggled book in history
-No other book has been scrutinized, banned, and burned more than this book.
-Why has it tested time?
-Rulers, kings, religious rulers, and men have tried to disprove this book, they have died, the Bible has not.
-25,000 archaeological evidence for the validity of scripture.
Bible is a library of 6 books, penned over a time of 2000 years, on three different continents, in 16 different countries, in 3 different languages, by 40 different writers from all walks of life...and not ONE contradiction. (I challenge you to prove otherwise)
-Over three hundred prophesies fulfilled surrounding the event of Jesus(God incarnate) and the cross. For just 8 of these prophetic words to be fulfilled is a:
1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance.
(mathematics states that after a number reaches the 54 power, it is impossible. This number would be obviously reached if we were to count the other 292 prophesies)
Most if not all evidences found in:
"Evidence that demands a verdict" and
"The case for Christ"
Very informative researches that leave you the ability to study to show yourself approved.
Test all things my friend. Do not be bound by the assumptions of others. Think about it:
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't(at that point it doesn't matter anyway). Than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out He reigns"
Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Con

My opponent again does not respond to my 3 arguments and as responding beginning in the last round would be abuse, these arguments are conceded. My opponent then brings what he calls 'unrefutable evidence' that the Christian god exists. I will now proceed to refute these arguments.

A.)The Bible is the best selling book of all time. #1 seller in every generation. Translated in 12,000 languages.
The most smuggled book in history. No other book has been scrutinized, banned, and burned more than this book.

The popularity of the Bible or even Christianity is not correlative to the Bible's validity. Hundreds of years ago popular consensus was that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Popularity does not imply validity.
B.)Why has it tested time?

People still buying into it does not mean it is correct. You have not yet provided evidence for this claim.

C.)Rulers, kings, religious rulers, and men have tried to disprove this book, they have died, the Bible has not.

Confusing here. You have not show why they have not been able to disprove the Bible or why the Bible's popularity means it is divinel inspired.

D.)25,000 archaeological evidence for the validity of scripture.
Bible is a library of 6 books, penned over a time of 2000 years, on three different continents, in 16 different countries, in 3 different languages, by 40 different writers from all walks of life...and not ONE contradiction. (I challenge you to prove otherwise)

What are these 25,000 archaeological evidences? You have not brought any specific examples.

E.)Over three hundred prophesies fulfilled surrounding the event of Jesus(God incarnate) and the cross. For just 8 of these prophetic words to be fulfilled is a:
1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance.

Where is your evidence that any phrophecies were fulfilled? It is up to you as the one making the claim of fulfilled phrophecies to back them up with evidence. You are simply making baseless claims at this point. Also as a side note, where did you get the chance of three of the prophecies being fulfilled?

My opponent ends Round 3 with the samous Pascal's wager. The wager that one has everything to gain by believing in god and everything to lose in not believing in god. This argument of course says nothing about whether there is evidence for god's existence or whether a god can logically exist. It merely says that we should hedge our bets.

My opponent brought many claims to this debate and as of yet has not backed them up with the necessary amount of evidence. My opponent has also not disproven my 3 arguments brought in Round 2. It is for these two reasons that I urge a Con vote. Good luck to my opponent in the voting period.
BornAgain_Mormon

Pro

I appreciate all that is said by the opponent. Although he states requirements for all material as stated to be "proven", he forgets that all material is stated in the Word of God. And proved therein. Interestingly enough, his previous statement only supports mine:

"The popularity of the Bible or even Christianity is not correlative to the Bible's validity. Hundreds of years ago popular consensus was that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Popularity does not imply validity"

The answer being found in the Word of God. (bet you didn't know this one)

For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat. If one went too far, he would fall over the edge. This was taught in both Hindu and Buddhist scripture. In the 1500s, the first ship sailed around the world. This proved the earth was round. But the round earth was recorded in the Judeo-Christian Bible long before man discovered it in the 1500s.

The prophet Isaiah (40:22) spoke of the "circle of the earth." Solomon wrote, "He [God] set a compass [circle] upon the face of the deep." Proverbs 8:27. In our century, Arabs spoke of infidels being pushed over the edge into space. About 3,000 years ago, our Bible said the earth was round. This was not discovered until 500 years ago. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian Bible is the inspired Word of God.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
C&P for the win :

http://www.pitt.edu...
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"I'll debate you on those same three arguments."

The first one is lame, you could rewrite it as "can god fart so bad jesus could not stand it", how many times are people going to use that one, the second redefines immutable in the middle of it, the third is a variant of the first but is at least interesting because of the a/b time dispute.
Posted by jc496 5 years ago
jc496
Both sides could have done much better... i've noticed that much "evidences" stated are open-ended
Posted by unitedandy 5 years ago
unitedandy
Methinks socialpinko has been reading Michael Martin. It's not that I think these arguments are necessarily doomed, but I have to admit, when I hear things like, "God cannot swim" as part of one of these arguments, I think we're on the wrong road. The only argument I've really heard of this kind which was even plausible (though admittedly I haven't really looked at them) is conflict between omnipotence and omniscience, which would be harder to refute I think. I'll definitely be reading J.Kenyon's take on your arguments, socialpinko, but I think I could probably guess where he will attack.

On the debate itself, a clear win for socialpinko. He presented 3 arguments and refuted the only (belated) argument he had to deal with.
Posted by BornAgain_Mormon 5 years ago
BornAgain_Mormon
I appreciate you knowledge based assumptions. Yet as a believer in the One true God, I know that common sense is all anyone can rely on in any debate. To rebuke common sense is to remove you God given ability to reason.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent."
God is just, and in His justice merits free will. Read the book of Revelations, there your answer lies.

"Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent"
For the Lord to remove all evil, is to remove what is left of mankind. Those who do not serve Him. Read Genesis to learn about how we became affected by sin and death.

"Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil"
Again the justice and most important aspect of God, LOVE.

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
It's interesting that you give merit to a God, only you question whether or not we should call Him God. Who are you to critique the God of the universe! As you look at the integrated message sent from outside of our time domain(The Bible) you will see that He is both willing and able.
God bless every one of you. I pray a first hand encounter with the One True God. Amen.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
J.Kenyon. I would love to have a debate with someone who actually wants to debate. However can we wait a day or two for the debate? I'm currently doing 11 debates and have another in the challenge period.
Posted by J.Kenyon 5 years ago
J.Kenyon
I'll debate you on those same three arguments.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Bringing logical arguments is no use. In te debate he didn't reply to the three arguments I presented.
Posted by theorusso 5 years ago
theorusso
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
socialpinkoBornAgain_MormonTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con unless you made those arguments they should be sourced
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
socialpinkoBornAgain_MormonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I wish people would stop taking socialpinko's debates without knowing how to debate... it isn't that he has good arguments, but his opponents have such awful ones.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
socialpinkoBornAgain_MormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided no real arguments.