The Kreimann argument regarding the non-existence of a Christian god is sound
Debate Rounds (3)
I will be arguing that this argument is unsound and will take up this debate with anyone who wants to defend this "theory."
I accept this debate.
I will try my best to refute my opponent argument and provide arguments against the existence of the Christian/Judaic God.
This argument is fallacious and can be debunked. That is what we will be debating--whether this argument can be accepted as valid--not the existence or non-existence of a Christian god.
The thrust of this proof is that no one worships the deities of historical Egypt, Greece, Rome, Aztec, or any other culture. We know that these deities are imaginary myths, the Kreimann argument asserts, because no one worships them anymore.
However, this is utterly fallacious! It is argumentum ad populum--using the popularity of something to determine its truth value. Really, that's how this argument claims that these deities never existed. If no one worships them anymore, then they must be imaginary.
Some actual words of a proponent:
". . . we know with complete certainty today that the Egyptian gods were imaginary. We don't build pyramids anymore and we do not mummify our leaders. "
"Yet we know with complete certainty that these gods were imaginary because no one worships Zeus any more."
"If the Aztec gods were real, we would still be offering sacrifices to them." (1)
By the same logic that no believers = nonexistent/false, many believers = existent/true. However, that doesn't apply, by their logic. In fact, the same oft-quoted proponent goes on to say that "The fact that millions of people worship a god is meaningless"--which means that the high Christian population holds no weight in determining the religion's truth value. However, this completely contradicts the point that they are trying to make. They connected lack of continuing worship to the existence of a deity, then proceed to say that the number of worshipers is meaningless. This is a serious contradiction.
The flow of the argument is incoherent:
1. Many, many historical gods have no worshipers today.
2. No worshipers means that the god doesn't exist, otherwise it would still command worship.
3. Millions of people worship the God of the Bible and Jesus, but this number of worshipers is irrelevant to the existence of a god.
4. Therefore, God is imaginary.
Sorry for the late reply, I've been very busy as of lately and did not have enough time to reply to this debate.
I think you are misunderstanding something that is very crucial. The argument is, "Dead" Gods were as popular as the "Present" Gods today. If you look through history you will find Zeus, Amon, Mesopotamian Gods, etc... Were the most popular Gods at their respective times. People worshipped them, gave them sacrifices and followed their respective religions as most of the Christians/Muslims/Jews do today. The simple fact that you were born in the 21st century and most probably in a Christian country made you a Christian, but if you were born in 6-5th century BCE, you probably would've been as a firm believer of Zeus as you are now of Christ.
Humans who were born at those times, believed as much as you in their "extinct" Gods, so the argument simply goes that God's are popular during their respective periods, then they fade away.
Another good example is the Zoroastrian religion that is almost extinct now. From the 6th century BCE, it was the most prevalent religion in the Persian region, now the biggest estimate is that there are 2.6 million adherers. Considering the fact that almost anyone born during the peak of Zoroastrianism was almost a 100% a Zoroaster.
Another important aspect is syncretism or religion evolution that makes religion or Gods go extinct. If you look at the entire history of religions, you will find that each part of the world had their own Gods and had their own very different beliefs. When these school of thoughts come together due to war, trade, etc... They very often produce a new school of thought that is a blend between both religions.
I will give you an example. Judaism according to archeology was polytheistic at the beginning. You will find that whenever the Jews travelled to a certain place; such as Babylon, that they adopt certain ideas that are syncretised into their religion. If you look at the ten commandments, you will find lots of similarities between the ten commandments and the Hammurabi Code. What happened is that they took Hammurabi's Code and gave it a little bit "Jewish" taste. Then when Judaism started getting into contact with Zoroastrianism and Akhenatan, the idea of monotheism began to syncretise. As Judaism evolved, earlier religions and their Gods started to die out .
If Islam starts growing much more and start taking over the Europe and the Americas. Christianity numbers will start to diminish and maybe one day, it will go extinct. Thus, Christ as a God will be regarded as a Myth just like Zeus, Amon, etc.. Then the one true God would be Allah until a new religion forms and takes over Islam and the cycle goes on.
"By the same logic that no believers = nonexistent/false, many believers = existent/true. However, that doesn't apply, by their logic. In fact, the same oft-quoted proponent goes on to say that "The fact that millions of people worship a god is meaningless"--which means that the high Christian population holds no weight in determining the religion's truth value. However, this completely contradicts the point that they are trying to make. They connected lack of continuing worship to the existence of a deity, then proceed to say that the number of worshipers is meaningless. This is a serious contradiction."
I think again you misunderstood the argument. You accept those Gods as myths because you were born in a time that these Gods are extinct. Again as I said before, if you were born during those times, you would've been following their religions. Second, we cannot prove that these God were myths for 100% sure. They can be real but they don't care about being worshipped or being known.
The point that is made here is that all Gods are imaginary even if there are a 100 billion followers or zero followers. God's demand some religious commitment whether through prayers, fasting etc... Christianity has some religious demands, so did the Hellenistic religions.
Your argument that it fallacious because it ad populum is actually quite wrong because it is proposing that it is true according to the followers of X God. The argument is saying that all Gods are imaginary. Not because a billion followers make it true or zero followers make it true. But, if God is demanding/forbidding humans of specific actions because it makes God angry/happy. Thus, when that God dies out, it makes it impossible that God existed because his words are long forgotten and people are disobeying him and have no way to know the supposed truth. Which makes God's words are in fact, not God's words but a word of a mortal being.
If Christianity to die out tomorrow, then how would be God pleased with people not knowing Jesus Christ and getting salvation? All people would go to hell if the Christian God exist or it is a dead religion like all the past dead religions and the Christian God was imaginary and whoever wrote the bible was a mere mortal. People believe in the Christian God because they are following Christianity, but according to everyone else, Judaic God is a myth.
 A History of God - Karen Armstrong
othercheek forfeited this round.
My opponent forfeited, there is nothing to be refuted.
Thanks for this debate,
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 2 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:||3||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro because Con forfeited. Sources go to Pro because Con used a non-academic, Christian-biased source. Arguments go to Con because he completely demolished the argument and didn't receive a good refutation. "The thrust of this proof is that no one worships the deities of historical Egypt, Greece, Rome, Aztec, or any other culture. We know that these deities are imaginary myths, the Kreimann argument asserts, because no one worships them anymore." I agree with the reasoning here. If a God is not worshiped anymore, that doesn't mean he is a myth as the argument states. Pro was unable to refute that but said that we do accept them as myths, which is a red herring. Our acceptance of them has nothing to do with their existential status.
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.