The Instigator
yoyopizza
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

The christian god cannot be proven

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 6 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,344 times Debate No: 34713
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (65)
Votes (6)

 

yoyopizza

Pro

I'd like to begin by stating that I have just recently become an atheist (this week), and wish to test this newfound belief against someone who knows what they're talking about. I have a few points that I find very condemning and wish to see what you have to say.
1(science) If, according to the bible, the universe is 6,000 years old, how do you account for us seeing stars more than 6,000 light years away. How do explain the radiometric dating of rocks on just earth to be at least 4.5 billion years old? (please don't say that carbon dating isn't accurate, of course you don't use carbon dating on rocks that old because for one THERE'RE ROCKS).

2(morality) God is supposed to be the source of morality, and is just and always good, I am correct in saying such? If this is true how do you view the genocide committed in the bible for god? Or by god, as in Genesis chapter 6 and 7, where god saw that the entire world was evil, and killed men, women, and children? LEVITICUS 26:27-29 God threatened hostility, punishing people for their sins "seven times over," making them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters. EXODUS 21:20-21 According to God"s law, it was wrong to beat a slave to the point of death. But if the slave survived and got back up within a few days, the beating wasn't punishable, because the slave was the property of the master. (God endorsed slavery and the beating of slaves.) LUKE 19:26 In the parable of the ten minas, the master (God) said of those who chose not to follow him, "...bring them here and kill them in front of me." I could go on and on with these atrocities, but ill stop there and get on to my third and final point of this argument.

3(common sense) God is perfect, as is the bible and every word it contains, correct? So if one part of the bible is false, then god is not perfect and therefore nonexistent.
Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

Was Jesus Born in a House or a Manger?
Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
In a house.
Luke 2:7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
In a manger. There was no room in the inn.
Again, I could go on and on, looking forward to your response.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con


Young Earth


"1(science) If, according to the bible, the universe is 6,000 years old, how do you account for us seeing stars more than 6,000 light years away. How do explain the radiometric dating of rocks on just earth to be at least 4.5 billion years old? (please don't say that carbon dating isn't accurate, of course you don't use carbon dating on rocks that old because for one THERE'RE ROCKS)."

My opponent's argument that the universe and earth have to be billions of years old is sound. However, this has no bearing on the resolution. There is nowhere in The Bible where it says the universe is 6000 years years old. Therefore, one is completely rational in accepting the scientific age of the universe and Earth along side with a belief in the Christian God.

God and Morality

"God is supposed to be the source of morality, and is just and always good, I am correct in saying such? If this is true how do you view the genocide committed in the bible for god?"

God may have morally sufficient reasons for these things that our limited minds are to small to grasp. Take for instance a Dog. A Dog who gets a shot does not understand what the shot is for and may think the master is just hurting him for no good reason. However, the shot was a benevolent thing because the shot will prevent bad things from happening in the future. Just because the Dog is too limited to understand why the master inflicted pain, does not mean that the master did something wrong. Similarly, these things you may think are immoral, may just be due to your lack of omniscience or complete understanding of God's plan.

Perfection and The Bible

"God is perfect, as is the bible and every word it contains, correct?"

Not necessarily. The Bible is said to be inspired by God, but that does not man that man relayed the message perfectly. All this section from Pro does is demonstrate human error, not an error in God.

The Bible Being False Does Not Mean That God Cannot Be Proven

The Bible could be so flawed to the point it is laughable; this does nothing to show the Christian God does not exist. Jesus could have still been the messiah, and been resurrected even if The Bible is flawed. The Holy Spirit (part of the trinity) could still effect people regardless of scripture.

Pro Must Show Prove The Christian God Does Not Exist

If the Christian God exists, then he could prove himself; meaning that the Christian God could indeed be proven. The only way the resolution can be true, is if God does not exist.

Conclusion

Pro has not met the burden of proof necessary.
Debate Round No. 1
yoyopizza

Pro

"There is nowhere in The Bible where it says the universe is 6000 years years old."

True, but this is the logical conclusion based on the bibles timeline. Here's a link to a christian website telling why they determined the age of the earth to be about 6,000 years. http://www.angelfire.com...

"God may have morally sufficient reasons for these things that our limited minds are to small to grasp."

I sincerely hope that you say this for argumentative reasons only and do not think this. What you are saying that there is some context in which murder, rape, incest, and genocide are okay.

"Not necessarily. The Bible is said to be inspired by God, but that does not man that man relayed the message perfectly. "

So an all powerful god who can do anything and wants to present himself to his children, so he inspires an imperfect book based on falsehoods with no verifiable authors to better communicate?

"The Bible could be so flawed to the point it is laughable; this does nothing to show the Christian God does not exist. "

You are correct, even if there is no bible there could be a christian god, but then how do you plan to prove him?

"Pro has not met the burden of proof necessary."

Since when do I have to prove to you that god doesn't exist? The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim. I refer you to the comments in which I talked about my invisible dragon. I have a flying invisible dragon in my room. I have no proof, except a burnt paper, which of course is only explainable by my dragon. Why don't you believe in my dragon? You don't believe because I didn't prove it, proof of god is on you.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Young Earth

Pro mentions James Ussher's calculations for a Young Earth as evidence that The Bible does indeed endorse a Young Earth. However, Princeton professor William Henry Green refuted these calculations:

"We conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world"[1]

Pro has the burden of proof. Thus, until he gives good reasons as to why James Ussher is correct and Henry Green is wrong; we have no basis to conclude that The Bible claims the Earth is 6,000 years old.

God and Morality

Just because God allows something, does not mean he endorses it; as he gave human beings free-will. If he orders something you believe is wrong, there might be morally sufficient reason for it. Pro gave no argument against God having morally sufficient reasons pertaining to certain actions. Thus, Pro has not met his burden here.

Perfection and The Bible

Just because humans made an error in accepting a perfect message, does not mean the message was not perfect. Pro still has not shown that any contradictions in The Bible could not be due to man's error instead of God. Thus, Pro has no case in this regard.

The Bible Being False Does Not Mean That God Cannot Be Proven

Pro absolutely concedes my point here.

Pro Must Show Prove The Christian God Does Not Exist

"Since when do I have to prove to you that god doesn't exist? The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim." - Pro

I agree with above. However, Pro is making the claim that the Christian God cannot be proven. Thus, Pro has the burden of proof to show God does not exist. This is because, if God exists, then he could prove himself because he is omnipotent. If he can prove himself, that means he can be proven. Thus, the only way my opponent can win the debate, is if my opponent proves God does not exist. This is because, only if God does not exist could the resolution be true! If God exists, then he can easily prove himself. Thus, negating the resolution in the process.

Conclusion

Pro has not shown that the Christian God cannot be proven. Thus, Pro has not met his burden of proof.

Sources

[1] Primeval Chronology by Dr. William Henry Green (1825-1900)
Debate Round No. 2
yoyopizza

Pro

Neither prediction can be refuted, Ussher interprets the word yom to mean a literal day, while Green interprets it to mean a measure of time.

"Just because God allows something, does not mean he endorses it; as he gave human beings free-will. If he orders something you believe is wrong, there might be morally sufficient reason for it."

If a murder is currently killing somebody, the victim has lost their free will. God, as an omnipresent being would be there, he could either stop the murder, violating his free will, or allow the victim to die, thus violating the victims free will. In either situation the free will of one person is affected, yet god allows such a thing to happen and therefore does not exist or is corrupt. I did provide reasons for god not having morally sufficient reasons for his actions, because there is not a morally sufficient reason for the murder, rape, slavery, and genocide he endorsed. What you are telling me that it is okay for a god to kill people as he pleases?

EXODUS 21:20-21 According to God’s law, it was wrong to beat a slave to the point of death. But if the slave survived and got back up within a few days, the beating wasn't punishable, because the slave was the property of the master. (God endorsed slavery and the beating of slaves.)

EXODUS 32:27 After seeing the golden calf, God commanded the Levites, "Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor." 3,000 were slaughtered, and God was pleased.(God was pleased)

On that note, if you believe in god you believe that he created heaven and hell and earth. He knows all. If this is true he created a universe, put people in it whom he destined to burn in hell for eternity. He created the garden of eden, and put a tree in the middle of it with a snake he created to convince people to sin! He designed the world for sin, he wanted it to happen, why else make it possible for us to eat, what's the point of eating anyways in the garden of eden?

"Just because humans made an error in accepting a perfect message, does not mean the message was not perfect."

A supposedly perfect god can't send a clear message?

Now, since the title of the argument is that god cannot be proven, and I obvioudly cannot disprove god, you win. Understand though, that I ment that you could not prove god exists. I ask that despite this you continue the argument with my remaining claims.

Rational_Thinker9119

Con


Young Earth

"Neither prediction can be refuted, Ussher interprets the word yom to mean a literal day, while Green interprets it to mean a measure of time."

Here, my opponent concedes that his argument in favor of The Bible supporting a Young Earth is unjustified; as we do not know who's argument (between Ussher and Green) we should adhere to and deem most plausibly true. Basically, this argument from Pro can be self-evidently dismissed based on these grounds mentioned.

God and Morality

"If a murder is currently killing somebody, the victim has lost their free will. God, as an omnipresent being would be there, he could either stop the murder, violating his free will, or allow the victim to die, thus violating the victims free will. In either situation the free will of one person is affected, yet god allows such a thing to happen and therefore does not exist or is corrupt."


Pro completely dodges my argument that God may have morally sufficient reasons for why he does the things Pro believes are immoral. In the context of the debate; this argument from me stands.

Perfection and The Bible

"A supposedly perfect god can't send a clear message?"

My argument is that there could be a problem with the reception, not the sending. My HD TV can send a "perfect" image, but if there are slightly blind people watching it, any reports from these people may very well be flawed. The burden of proof was on Pro to show that it was not a reception problem, but a sending problem. This feat was not accomplished.

The Bible Being False Does Not Mean That God Cannot Be Proven

Pro admits that the Christian God could still exist even if The Bible is extremely flawed. Thus, all this biblical discussion really has no true bearing on the resolution at hand.

Pro Must Show Prove The Christian God Does Not Exist

"Now, since the title of the argument is that god cannot be proven, and I obviously cannot disprove god, you win. Understand though, that I meant that you could not prove god exists. I ask that despite this you continue the argument with my remaining claims."


Pro concedes the entire debate here.

Conclusion

Conduct

Out of respect for the request; I responded to the rest of his arguments even though a concession was made. However, Pro made an honorable concession. Thus, I think nobody should really get points for conduct as we were both rather generous to each other.

Arguments

I would urge arguments to Con for obvious reasons.

Spelling/ Grammar

Pro made several spelling errors. I gracefully request spelling/ grammar points.

Sources

Pro had a much better variety of sources than I did pertaining to The Bible. I would urge voters give sources to Pro if they feel forced to choose.

I thank Pro for the debate.


Debate Round No. 3
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Back to Theism? Was it because of our debate?
Posted by Jegory 4 years ago
Jegory
yoyopizza: "There's no evidence of a flood, there is evidence of evolution."

Who says all theists believe in the flood? There's no evidence against God and, for the record, God doesn't go against evolution.

"Let the land produce living creatures" - Gen. 1:24

No, God didn't just put animals on the Earth. They came from the Earth. Now stop thinking we all take the Bible literally and think about the thing all theists believe in; God, not an age-old book.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Ok, enough of bickering in this comment section. Lets settle this in the debate.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
It's done
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
OK, send me the debate request.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
No we will debate the exact same resolution. I will begin now..
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
No we will debate the exact same resolution. I will begin now..
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"He does not need to show that the Christian God does not exist, God may very well exist, but he needs to that he can't just can't prove the Christian God....And he didn't

And you needed to show that God can be proven, but you never, so I make you the loser."

False. Pro started the debate, thus HE has the BoP to show the resolution is true. If God exists, the resolution is false because he could prove himself; thus God could be proven. Thus, Pro has to show God does not exist to meet his burden. You are committing the switching the burden of proof logical fallacy.

How many times do I have to repeat it?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Send me the request; I won't back down.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
He does not need to show that the Christian God does not exist, God may very well exist, but he needs to that he can't just can't prove the Christian God....And he didn't

And you needed to show that God can be proven, but you never, so I make you the loser.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
yoyopizzaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession: "Now, since the title of the argument is that god cannot be proven, and I obvioudly cannot disprove god, you win." I do not feel that spelling or sources were strong enough to impact the vote (sources were closer, but I don't wish to tie a concession). FYI: On this one I wouldn't worry about there being a single vote for argument to pro, as even in a concession someone could find enough aspects of an argument to be superior.
Vote Placed by Guy_D 4 years ago
Guy_D
yoyopizzaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I understand that Pro conceded the debate, and Con wins. However, regarding the title (The Christian god cannot be proven)? I am also not convinced that the BOP is on Pro. Con says? ?When someone makes a debate, the BoP is on them to prove that the resolution is true.? This contention is a debatable issue itself, and cannot simply be turned aside. BOP seems to have become a debate tactic more than anything. The rules were not clearly set out (Pro's fault). Hopefully Pro can learn from this and dedicate more thought to a debate title and clearly set the rules and state that the burden of proof can indeed be shared.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
yoyopizzaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering lubbas obvious votebomb
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 4 years ago
ClassicRobert
yoyopizzaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made many spelling errors, and conceded the debate with "Now, since the title of the argument is that god cannot be proven, and I obviously cannot disprove god, you win."
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
yoyopizzaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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: Con did not answer the problem of evil sufficiently, he concludes that The Christian God may have sufficient reasons to allow objective evil to exist, he does not prove this and can not prove this, he only speculates an opinion. as we have proof for pros POE an none for cons speculation then the problem still remains unsolved...Also deducting a conduct point for con for contesting my claim that he shares the BOP and never sufficiently proved that the chrtistian God can be proven.
Vote Placed by GOP 4 years ago
GOP
yoyopizzaRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used a source from by someone with a PhD There were a lot of grammar errors from Pro..For example, he said, "THERE'RE ROCKS"..