The Instigator
UnhookedSchnook
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The christian god exists and rules over the universe.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 645 times Debate No: 83835
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

UnhookedSchnook

Con

The christian god exists and rules over the universe.Preface

This debate is about god, obviously. We, as said later in this statement, are using the definitions provided by credible sources (more specific later). This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.

Terms

All terms and definitions are influenced by or excerpted from the Oxford Dictionary.

Rules

1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions
8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
9. The BOP is shared
10. The first round is for acceptance only
11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

Structure

R1. Acceptance
R2. Pro's Case, Con's Case
R3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case
R4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case
R5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both SummarizePreface

This debate is about god, obviously. We, as said later in this statement, are using the definitions provided by credible sources (more specific later). This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.

Full Topic

God probably exists.

Terms

All terms and definitions are influenced by or excerpted from the American Heritage Dictionary, the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, and the Oxford Dictionary.

God - the all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe
probably - 'is likely to happen or be true'
Exist - 'have objective reality or being'

Rules

1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions
8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
9. The BOP is shared
10. The first round is for acceptance only
11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

Structure

R1. Acceptance
R2. Pro's Case, Con's Case
R3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case
R4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case
R5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both Summarize
Jerry947

Pro

Lots of rules you have there...nevertheless I am up to the challenge. I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
UnhookedSchnook

Con

Part 1:

Many people, rightly so, ask themselves “What created the physical processes that allow life to exist? How were matter and energy created?" The answer to both of these claims are, we do not yet know. Now, when someone does not know the answer to something they care about they will search for the answer. However, we human beings are not currently developed enough to be able to answer this question. We must not come up with an instinctual response and say, ‘oh, a greater power must have done it’. No matter how much you believe that it does not make it true.

Side Note… I always wanted to ask someone who believes in religion, what created god, why was he around at the time of creation?

Part 2:

It was also created to keep the masses happy and provide the monarchy with greater power. For all those people that lived long ago and had a very low quality of life what is the point of living it, why not overthrow the monarchy and live a better life? Well because the bible would forbid that, what a coincidence. For example look at the ‘divine right of kings’, it was created by a king and it basically says that the monarchy is the closest person to god, a sin against a king/queen is a sin against god.

Transition:

Taking this into account we see that religion was created to sooth the mind of the many lower class citizens. At the moment neither atheism nor religion can be proved, so it seems smartest to take the most probable explanation.

Why is atheism more probable than god? / Why is god less probable than atheism?:

Part 1:

Despite the endless facts and proof that is provided to us many still believe in a religion. Have you ever prayed? If not try this prayer, I have not yet seen it work and maybe there is a reason for that…

“Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.”

Will it work? No, of course not. But strangely enough passage after passage Jesus says praying will work, so in this instance, and every instance, why doesn’t it?

Part 2:

Think about DNA for a second… No one encodes DNA, instead it was encoded by a process of natural selection acting upon random mutations. Millions of scientists have proved that this is true, furthermore, look at this letter that thousands of clergy men signed to show that they believe in this scientific evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org......). The odds of DNA forming are very high if you consider the huge number of evolutionary reiterations possible under huge number of environmental stressors. We were not created in god’s image by god, we were created as living creatures by the formation of DNA.

Part 3:

We know that there are many different religions to choose from and we also know that in multiple ‘bibles’ we are told that it is a sin to believe in a different god. It is also seen that Christianity and many other religions have derived from pagan gods. Does that not make pagan gods more likely to be true than the Christianity god (as there has been less room for human error when it comes to numerous interpretations)?( https://en.wikipedia.org......)


Christianity: 2.1 billion

Islam: 1.3 billion

Hinduism: 900 million

Chinese traditional religion: 394 million

Buddhism: 376 million

African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million

Sikhism: 23 million

Juche: 19 million

Spiritism: 15 million

Judaism: 14 million

Baha'i: 7 million

Jainism: 4.2 million

Shinto: 4 million

Cao Dai: 4 million

Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million

Tenrikyo: 2 million

Neo-Paganism: 1 million

Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand

Rastafarianism: 600 thousand

Scientology: 500 thousand

(Encyclopedia Britannica)

Part 4:

Many people believe that religion is great for society. Look at the social dysfunction that religion causes. Whether it be the cause of 7% of the world’s major wars (http://www.catholic.com......) or the many people that die each year because they refuse lifesaving medical treatment. Sure it does collect money for the needy and provide a set of moral values. However, look how much money the Catholic Church is worth, those magnificent buildings don’t build themselves. Also, other than those people who are completely insane, who does not have any moral values, read the bible and then become valued contributors to society. Finally, the USA is one of the greatest believers in religion, but, for a first world country, they have one of the greatest problems with issues such as:homicide, juvenile, early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion (the bible condones most if not all).

(http://a-a-ah.ru......)

For the record:

I have numerous pieces of evidence but have only gone into these few. I will also briefly touch on this one to conclude as I like how the bible contains numerous pieces of hypocrisy. ‘Thou shall not kill’ said by the lord almighty in one of his ten commandments. But what about these parts of the bible: Deut 21:18-21, Leviticus 20:13, Exodus 35:2 ect…

Bibliography:

Divine right of kings: https://en.wikipedia.org......

Have a look at this: http://www.dailysquib.co.uk......

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net......

http://www.religioustolerance.org......

http://www.quora.com......
Jerry947

Pro

Hello,
Just wanted to point out that your opening argument seems to be addressing all religions and not just Christianity. But here are thirteen arguments for the existence of God. See the sources after each argument for more information. I will not be addressing any of the arguments you listed since you asked me to only present my case in round two. I will tackle your arguments in round three.

1. Ontological argument
According to you definition of God, he is "the all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe." Being all-powerful means to be the greatest being that exists. And since existing is greater than to not exist, God must exist since he is the greatest being that can be imagined. Basically, the argument goes like this...
a. God is is the all-powerful creator and ruler of the Universe.
b. A being that is all-powerful is the greatest being that can possibly exist.
c. A being that exists is greater than a being that doesn't exist.
d. God is the greatest being, therefore he is greater than a being that doesn't exist
e. Therefore, God exists.
Source: https://www.princeton.edu...

2. Teleological argument
The world is so complex that there must be a creator. According to Roger Penrose of Oxford University, he has calculated that the odds of that low-entropy state's (state in which the universe began) existing by chance alone is on the order of one chance out of 10^10(123). That number is inconceivable. The odds are so against a life permitting universe that it is like a criminal (representing the universe) is about to be executed by a firing squad (representing odds against life permitting universe) and then the members of the firing squad all miss. People claim that it happened by chance. Christians say that it is ludicrous to think it happened by chance. Why? Because something feels rigged. It is completely logical to believe that there is an intelligent designer. On the other hand, it is crazy to call all of this simple chance.
Source: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu...

3. Cosmological argument
The argument in a nutshell is as follows:
a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
b. The universe began to exist.
c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
d. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).
God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. If you have any objections to any of the premises in this argument, see source and see if your objection is listed there. The source gives good explanations to the objections it lists.
Source: https://carm.org...

4. Axiological argument
a. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
b. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
c. Therefore, God exists.
My explanation: Only religion can give the most logical explanation for the origin of morality. Most people have an idea of what is right and wrong. Religious people, most of the time state that morality comes from God. This makes sense considering most people abide by an objective moral code that they expect everyone to know about. And the only way an objective moral code could exist is if a God created it. Objective morality can only come from an objective being (God). Now some people might argue that there is no such thing as objective morality or a real right and wrong. But the people that argue this always go back on their claim a moment later (Lewis 6). People try to argue that morality is created by societies. But we also understand that there are societies that have condoned evil practices when in fact people know that the society was wrong. For example, W. H. Auden, a famous 20th century poet, said that "there had to be a reason Hitler was utterly wrong." Auden said this famous quote after going to a theater that showed pictures of the Holocaust. These pictures sickened him and made him rethink his worldview. Before watching these pictures, Auden believed that it was up to the society to decide what was right and wrong. But during his time at the theater he realized that if societies decided what was right and wrong, and if morality is subjective, this would mean that Hitler was justified in everything he did. Well, at least according to that society. And who are we to tell them they are wrong if morality is purely subjective? Therefore, religion gives the best explanation for why there is an objective morality and why it exists.
Source: http://www.apologeticspress.org...

5. Evidence of the resurrection of Jesus
We know that Jesus died and we know that Jesus went missing from his tomb. The best explanation was that he actually did rise from the dead. See the link for more information.
Source: http://www.peterkreeft.com...

6. Evidence of the Bible
The Bible records different peoples' opinions on who the Christian God was. It never tries to prove the existence of God but it does mention why someone should believe in God and it states reasons for believing in God and for doing what he asks.
Source: https://www.biblegateway.com...

7. The Experiences of Christians
Millions of Christians each have their story on how they came to know Jesus. God's existence has been proven to each of these Christians and it would be very wise of you to ask them why they believe what they believe. Their stories may even convince you yet. Take a look at the amazing testimony linked below.
Source: http://www.cslewisinstitute.org...

8. Mathematical argument
Here is what Craig says in the link posted below:
1. God provides the best explanation for the existence of abstract entities.{2} In addition to tangible, concrete objects like people and trees and chairs, philosophers have noticed that there also appear to be abstract objects, things like numbers, propositions, sets, and properties. These things have a sort of conceptual reality, rather like ideas in your mind. And yet it's obvious that they're not just ideas in any human mind. So what is the metaphysical foundation of such abstract entities? The theist has a plausible answer to that question. They are grounded in the mind of God. Alvin Plantinga, one of America's foremost philosophers, explains:

It seems plausible to think of numbers as dependent upon or even constituted by intellectual activity. But there are too many of them to arise as a result of human intellectual activity. We should therefore think of them as... the concepts of an unlimited mind: a divine mind.{3}

At the most abstract level, then, theism provides a plausible, metaphysical foundation for the existence of abstract objects. And that's the first reason why I think it's plausible to believe in God.
Source: http://www.leaderu.com...
Note: William Lane Craig came up with every word of this math argument for God. I just copied and pasted his argument for this particular argument for God's existence.

9. Transcendental argument
I will go into this argument rather quickly. Laws of logic are not apart of the physical universe because if the physical universe were to disappear, the Laws of Logic would still be true. The Laws of Logic were not made by human minds because human minds are different--not absolute. But yet the laws of logic are known by pretty much every person on the planet. There must have been a creator that put these laws into humans minds.
Source: https://carm.org...

10. The Failure of Atheism
Here are a list of fails...
1. Atheism cannot explain why humans/life exists.
2. Atheism cannot explain why a human should have reason to be moral.
3. Atheism cannot explain free will.
4. Atheism cannot explain why good and evil exist. In fact, true atheists deny the existence of good and evil because they know that suffering is an argument for the existence of God.
Source: https://ehyde.wordpress.com...

11. Miracles
Supernatural events happen every so often and they cannot be explained by scientists. The authors of the Bible (which is composed of many letters and other works) believed they saw Jesus perform miracles. How do you explain away the miracles that they saw? Most critics of the Bible today claim that the authors were hallucinating? Would you agree with these Bible critics?
Source: http://www1.cbn.com...

12. Truth arguments
God is the best explanation for why truth exists. Many atheists recognize this and I have even spoke with someone who denied the existence of truth. But the fact is, if truth were to objectively exist (and all people believe in an absolute truth even if they say they don't), it had to come from a being that is objectively true. Truth doesn't just come from no where.
Source: http://orthosphere.org...

13. Moral obligation argument (similar to the 4th argument)
See argument 15 in the source listed below...
Source: http://www.peterkreeft.com...

Thanks for creating this debate. I love discussing this topic and I can not wait for your next response.
Debate Round No. 2
UnhookedSchnook

Con

Here is my refute.

If the link does not work add me and I will message you a new one.

It was only a few characters over, even after cutting down so I had to do this.

I believe that my refutes are compelling, I hope you agree.

Generally, your arguments had very little to do with the Christian god.

https://drive.google.com...
Jerry947

Pro

Thanks for responding so quickly. Just wanted to say that your original argument seemed to address all religions and not just the Christian God. That said, my arguments are for the Christian God. You said that in round three, "Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case." So I will not not yet defend the arguments I gave. I will instead rebut your opening argument you gave in round two. I will eventually defend my arguments in round four just like you asked me to do in round one.

1. You stated in part one of your opening argument that "we must not come up with an instinctual response and say oh, a greater power must have done it." Just wanted to point out two errors with your part one argument. One problem being that you asserted that people instinctively decide to believe that God created everything. You have provided no evidence that people instinctively believe in God and you have not even given a reason to think that this would be a problem if true. You say that "no matter how much you believe that it does not make it true." But why is it a problem that people believe in God? You also seem to misunderstand why people believe in God. People have faith in God that is based on evidence (as provided in round two). People do not just randomly have faith in God because of some instinct.

The main problem with your part one argument is that it does not even attempt to disprove that God exists and is ruler over the universe.

2. You stated that prayer does not work in your opening argument. My response is that it does of course work. You can ask the millions of people that are Christians. We will each give you an example in which God answered one of our prayers. The fact the you (an unbeliever in God) has not seen prayer work is simply because you refuse to believe what Christians tell you. If I were you, I would go to a church and hear what Christians have to say. Do not just claim something does not happen just because you haven't experienced something as awesome as prayer.

The main problem with this argument is that your doubts about prayer have nothing to do with disproving that God exists and is ruler of the universe. Not believing that something does not exist (prayer/God) is not the same as disproving the thing exists.

3. It was also stated in my opponents opening argument that "No one encodes DNA, instead it was encoded by a process of natural selection acting upon random mutations." It should be noted that my opponent has not disproven anything but has merely asserted his own beliefs. The link he gave as evidence of his belief doesn't even support what he said. The link talked about some atomic number (117) which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. As for the formation of DNA, lets see what previous atheist Antony Flew had to say on the matter. He stated that "I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together." Your belief in evolution is a theory and there is no evidence that supports macroevolution.

4. Then my opponent goes on to explain his belief that "Christianity and many other religions have derived from pagan gods." Two main problems arise with his argument. One being that he has given no evidence to support his claim that Christianity has derived from a pagan god. He has just asserted this and has expected the readers to believe him. He also has not explained why (if true) this disproves the existence of God. Another problem is that the link he gave again spoke of the atomic number (117) and did not address anything he/I was saying.

5. Then my opponent goes on to state that religion is harmful for society. Not only does his argument not address the existence of God, but he has given no evidence to back up his claim. The link he gave (http://www.catholic.com...) to show the statistics he provided was a catholic website that supported God and defended him. The link had nothing to do with the statistics he came up with. In other words, my opponent has not proven that religion is harmful to society but he hasn't even provided a explanation as of to why this disproves the existence of God.

And then my opponent provides another random link (http://a-a-ah.ru...) that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why does he keep providing faulty links?

6. Lastly, my opponent attacks the Bible and claims that it contains "numerous pieces of hypocrisy." But not only does his argument have nothing to do with disproving the existence of God, but it also misinterprets the Bible. The commandment about killing does not state that people shouldn't kill. It states that people should not murder (https://www.biblegateway.com...). There is a difference between murder and killing. And again, even if the Bible were full of pieces of hypocrisy (which it isn't), what does this have to do with disproving the existence of God?

I would like to thank my opponent for continuing in this discussion and I look forward to defending my thirteen arguments in round four.
Debate Round No. 3
UnhookedSchnook

Con

1.
In this you cover 3 main points: you disbelieve my claim of instinctively pointing to god as I provided "no evidence", is there a problem believing in god? and that my claims do not prove anything to do with gods existence.
The reason that I say the instinctive response is to believe god did it is because people ask the question "why are we here?" and there is no answer based on hard evidence. A common phrase that I notice theists say are "someone created the universe" or "who created the universe?" (look at my other debates for evidence). Theists, from what I see immediately ask themselves the wrong question that can only be answered with a person being the creator of the universe, making it, by definition, god. My evidence that it is instinctive for some to think that it is god are all the true god believers that found religion for themselves and actually believe in it. The reason this is proof is because there is no evidence provided, yet they believe in it because they can"t see any other explanation (they disregard evidence).
Also you do realise you wrote "faith in God that is based on evidence, this is self-defeating. Faith is believing in something without evidence. What you are really saying is, "believing in god without evidence based on evidence", see, it does not make sense. Also, from your arguments, there was nothing in there that could ever serve as "evidence", that is why it is faith, they suck you in with fear instead (but that is a whole different debate, that I am happy to have).
Yes, there are many problems with believing in religion. Not only does it radicalize people, but it denies rights to innocent people. Women, black people, non-Christian people, homosexuals, mixed fabric wearers, Sunday workers etc. (just about everyone) are denied rights in the real world (by believers only) and are told that they will be tortured for eternity. This then gives rise to radicalised people like: Hitler, KKK members, Mumbai attackers, 9/11 attacker, Paris attackers etc. These people all did what they did and justified it with religion.
Finally, how does my argument disprove god in any way? As in most points it does not 100% prove your point, but it is a series of many evidences that discredit your points. Something that was created due to intelligent instincts, most of the time, will be wrong, something that requires faith, because there is no evidence is usually wrong.
BTW " you failed to answer my question about, what created god?

2.
You agreed with the bible/Jesus in saying prayer works. Your evidence for this is that millions of Christians have experienced miracles, however, I will not receive miracles because I am not a true believer. That is not evidence, personal experiences do not count as they could be faked. And you know what, in my argument I asked you to pray this prayer "Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen." And if prayer works for believers, like you (you said it yourself), it will work. So why not say this prayer? For what reason would god have for not answering it? What about all of the Christian in Syrian and Africa whose prayers are not answered. Improbable events that are prayed for are granted by god, prayers that are unanswered are forgotten and miracles that are not prayed for vary between religious and non-religious people. Given that prayer is not possible you could surely make the connection as to how this discredits god. When the bible is wrong, Jesus lies, believers that claim prayer works lie or are misled and the basis of Christianity is taken away.
3.
Evolution is one of those things that is not disputed anymore, it is as close to fact as gravity is. It conflicts with the bible as the evolution of man takes millions of years instead of the 6th day, within days of the earth being, 6000 years ago. So when a proven fact conflicts with a faith based book, problem occur. As you asked for evidence that evolution, particularly macroevolution, I will provide some. If you can disprove evolution, I will write a thesis with you and we can win a Nobel Prize. Here are some working =514; links that will bring you to evidences:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
There is a lot of evidence there, I do not expect you to read it all, but the point is that there is a lot of evidence for macroevolution.
A scientific theory is far different from the common definition, the common definition suits the word hypothesis more. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated argument for something (Wikipedia).
4.
He also has not explained why (if true) this disproves the existence of God.
Firstly, I could not find the link you claimed "spoke of the atomic number (117)", only Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica. As for evidence for Christianity being derived from Pagan Gods I thought that was general knowledge, so I have included another working link =514; to an overwhelming amount of evidence; http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net.... As for the connection that you could not make between my argument and the overall argument I even included it in this one, "Does that not make pagan gods more likely to be true than the Christianity god (as there has been less room for human error when it comes to numerous interpretations)?". As for the rest of the argument you have not addressed my main point about why Christianity is the correct religion out of all of them.
5.
The evidence I have provided to justify why religion is harmful to society is more than just, if not I will include some more. 9/11, ISIS and if they are not Christian enough how about the Holocaust and KKK. As for me using a Christian site that defends god (for evidence for statistical things like the 7% of major wars one), what is wrong with that, it if anything, is bias towards your side of view, that does not change the evidence. The medical treatment and USA evidences also still stand by themselves.
Like in most of your refutes you say that I have not explained how it disproves god, I thought that it was obvious in each case, but it appears not. It would suggest that the bible does not make you a better person and in fact, it has the possibility of making good people into bad. Does not disprove anything, but can give a reason to not make it common practice.
As for the link, I do not know about those. I am sorry, I can"t find the original links, not that my word counts=514;. Sorry.
6.
Great point! I did make a mistake. I was wrong about the commandments. Still it is easy to say a lot of the killing in the bible was murder. E.g. 21:20 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." You must remember that this is just 1 of about 90 examples.
As for the rest of the hypocrisy I have 535 examples. 1 of which is where there is confusion of what came first, plants or humans.
Plants before humans:
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so .... And the evening and the morning were the third day." Genesis 1:11-13
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them .... And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Genesis 27-31
Humans before plants:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth ... And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground." Genesis 2:4-7
"And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Genesis 2:8-9
I look ford to seeing how this "misinterprets" the bible.
Like in most of your refutes you say that I have not explained how it disproves god, I thought that it was obvious in each case, but it appears not. My argument of the bible being self-contradicting does not 100% disprove the existence of the Christian god, however no evidence is, it is merely a piece of the puzzle.
Jerry947

Pro

Part One: My defense of the 13 Arguments

1. The Ontological argument is a bit complicated. But another component of the argument is that because God exists in a world, that he must exist in all worlds as well (including our world) since he is omnipresent. But to address your rebuttals, here is what I have to say. Some "have insisted that asserting that an object exists can change the way that we conceive of it. If, having read about Socrates in the works of Plato, I discover that he is a real historical figure, i.e. that he exists, then this extra information will change the way that I think about him. Similarly, it is suggested, to say that God is not a mere figment of believers" imaginations, but actually exists, is to add something to the concept of God. Perhaps, then, Anselm"s comparison between a God that exists and a God that does not is possible, and the ontological argument survives Kant"s criticism."
Source: http://www.existence-of-god.com...

2. You suggested that we may live in a multiverse. My counter is that this is the real world and not the comic book world. There is no evidence that suggests that there are multiverses. The evidence that suggests that God created it is the complexity of the designs of the universe. Scientist Kepler once built a diorama of the solar system and his friend saw it and asked who made it. Kepler in response said that it just came out of no where. The friend became frustrated and said he didn't believe that something that beautiful could just come out of no where. Kepler then smiled and said "exactly." I believe that his friend became a believer but I am not sure on that point. Nevertheless Christians look at the complexity of the Universe and see the work of a creator. The nested hierarchical tree is great evidence for God. See link for my debate on evolution: http://www.debate.org....

3. You seem to agree that the Universe has a cause. But you failed to provide a cause for the Universe that is not God. I claim that God is the cause because only something personal, moral, creative, and complex could have created the universe. Why the Christian God? Because he is moral, creative, and etc... unlike all of the other Gods. See the link I gave for more details.

4. You agreed that "most people have an idea of what is right and wrong." This means that objective morality exists. You might think that all people just so happen to share the same opinion on morality...but that takes a lot of faith to believe in something like that. And the problem with your claim about societies providing morality is that it makes morality subjective. For example, no one could claim that Hitler was wrong because he merely had a different explanation for what morality is. Subjective morality takes away any meaning that morality has. Remember, opinions on what is moral do not create ethical standards. And by the way, Hitler was not a Christian. He was a liar that used Christian phrases to gain the trust of the people. He actually had a plan to completely destroy all of the Christians in Germany.

5. When analyzing texts, there is far more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for the existence of Julius Caesar. On another note, scholars are almost unanimous agreeing that Jesus was a real person. See think link (includes little information as requested) for more details: https://apologeticspress.org...
We know that Jesus was real, that he died, and that there was an empty tomb. The Resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb. See the link I gave earlier if you think you have a better explanation.

6. Your response to this argument made it clear that you have not read the Bible. The Bible is evidence for God's loving nature and his desire to save humanity. Your twisted view of the Bible is a result from not reading it. The Bible also gives powerful evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus and the Bible does a good job proving that Jesus is God. You should really read the text before criticizing it.

7. You claim that "personal testimonies don"t count as evidence in most/this cases." You then give an example of a personal testimony not shared by many people at all (if any). You have to admit that it is significant that millions of people throughout history have claimed to have relationships with God. Why not ask them about their experience and question them on their faith?

8. You say that we merely do not know where these abstract entities come from. This is a cop out and also a demonstration of your faith that one day in the future an answer will appear magically. You could argue (as you did) that these entities were somehow within humans, but Craig's response is that "It seems plausible to think of numbers as dependent upon or even constituted by intellectual activity. But there are too many of them to arise as a result of human intellectual activity." This mathematical argument is not a bad one at all.

9. You have made no attempt to refute this argument. For the sake of the amount of characters I have left
I am going to again tell you to read the link I provided. Here it is again: https://carm.org.... The answers to all of the questions you asked about the argument are in that link. But basically, the argument says that logic would exist with the existence or without them. Slick states that "but, since The Laws of Logic are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God."

10. Your quote says it all for me. You said that "Atheism does not explain anything." I completely agree with your statement. That is why the philosophy fails so miserably. Meanwhile, Christianity has answers to some of these complicated questions and gives humans reasons to live and to be moral.

11. The three examples you gave would not be considered miracles. An example of a miracle would be like the one I linked. Here it is again in case you didn't have time to read it: http://www1.cbn.com.... There are many more examples including people coming back to life. These miracles cannot be exampled by science.

12. The truth argument goes like this: (See link I gave earlier for more details)

a. Only an infallible omniscience could absolutely establish the whole truth of a proposition.
b. If there is no such thing as that absolute establishment, there are no wholly true propositions.
c. "There exists no absolutely true proposition," being self-refuting, is necessarily false.
d. Its opposite is therefore true: there exist absolutely, wholly true propositions.
e. There is an infallible omniscience.

The Atheist has to deny the existence of absolute truth to avoid recognizing the existence of God. But the problem is that every person does believe in absolute truth. Even the atheists that say they do not believe in absolute truth do. For example, when an atheist claims that thee is no absolute truth, that statement they just made is something they are claiming to be absolutely true.

13. Here is the link again: http://www.peterkreeft.com...
Not sure why it did not work the first time.

Part Two: Response to your Round Four defense

1.
a. You do not understand the definition of the word faith. Faith does not always have to be based on evidence. But my faith in God is based on the evidence I provided.
b. You clam that religion has done damage and this is true. But so have the nonreligious. See Joseph Stalin and Hitler for details. By the way, you claim that Christianity denies people certain rights. Can you explain where rights come from? If not from God, rights have to come from humans which makes the matter subjective and meaningless.
c. Your arguments have not even attempted to disprove the existence of God.
d. What created God you ask? God is a necessary being and therefore does not have a cause. Everything that exists contingently has a cause. But since God exist necessarily, he does not need a cause.

2. I have already addressed the miracle argument and won't go there again in this round. But...as for your cancer prayer example, have you tried asking God why he has not eliminated the disease? I have and he promised me that all suffering will end one day. I was also informed that our suffering on our short time on earth will be nothing compared to spending eternity in heaven.

3. Macroevolution is not even close to being a fact. See my debate on it for more details: http://www.debate.org...
By the way, you posted the same link five times with your support of evolution and the link also includes 29 potential falsifications with each argument it presents. Nothing it fact when it comes to macroevolution.

4. Christianity did not come from pagan ideas. The link you gave did not prove anything and merely explained that some similarities between the philosophies. But the idea of a God suffering and dying for humanity is completely original.
Sources: https://carm.org...

5. The problem with your link to the catholic site was that it did not list the statistics you gave. No evidence has been provided to show that the religious are more dangerous then the nonreligious.

6. The example you gave in order to show murder in the Bible was another example of your misrepresenting the Bible. The verses you gave (I happen to know them) were showing the limitations God put on slave owners. God punished the slave owners for the things they did wrong.

As for your other example of hypocrisy (did you mean to say contradiction?)...

The Bible verse says "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." In others words, the water came and then planets sprung up. Then man was created.

Thanks for debating!
Debate Round No. 4
UnhookedSchnook

Con

Sorry for the late responses, but here it is :). It is 12 am, lol. Been busy.

https://drive.google.com...


Jerry947

Pro

Here is my summary:

1. My opponent gave an opening argument that addressed all religions and did not really focus on the Christian God. He did not even try to disprove the existence of God. He merely made assumptions and his reasons for doubting in God. Most people try to use the argument of suffering to disprove God but my opponent only expressed his doubts instead of arguing against the existence of God. The whole argument about people "believing in God because their is no other explanation" is completely false. Theists base their faith on all kinds of evidence including the evidence I provided. The only type of faith that requires no evidence is "blind faith." But that is another matter.

2. Then my opponent goes on to claim more things without any evidence such as "Evolution is one of those things that is not disputed anymore." Then to support this claim, he cites the same link five times which leads the reader to a website that has 29 evidences for evolution. But the site also includes 29 possible falsifications along with the evidence. Nothing about macroevolution is a fact.

3. Then we get to several more claims which state things such as "Christianity comes from paganism" or "the Bible is full of hypocrisy." None of these claims were well supported and I explained why they were incorrect. More claims that were made later were even more incorrect and my opponent kept giving me links that lead to matters that had nothing to do with the topic.

4. The main problem with my opponent is that he does not understand what constitutes as evidence and he doesn't understand that Jesus was a real person. A person coming into a debate about the Christian God should have done some research before having a debate like this. False links that lead to bizarre content do not count as evidence and 99% of scholars agree that Jesus was a real person. My opponent absolutely has no reason to disbelieve in the existence of Jesus when I gave evidence to show him the truth.

5. My opponent also claims to have read the Bible. I find this hard to believe when he misrepresented it twice. But I hope he will go ahead and read it again because there is a lot of truth in it. There is a reason why people have so much faith in that book.

6. Many of the responses I got to the thirteen arguments were not really rebuttals but emotional responses...

b. "This is crazy. I am glad I left this response to last, once again, sorry if I sound mad, this argument gets

me frustrated. You make the claim "God is the best explanation for why truth exists" then the

closest thing I can find to evidence is "But the fact is, if truth were to objectively exist " it had to

come from a being that is objectively true.". Why?

What created god? What is the evidence that that is the case?

Not only were some questions asked that were already answered (God exists necessarily), but this was an emotional response and it did not refute the truth argument I gave. It seemed like my opponent didn't even understand what was said. But nevertheless I had fun debating this topic and I hope my opponent learned something (like I have) during this discussion.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by joseph.vu 1 year ago
joseph.vu
This is going to be a super cool debate ! I am debating about a similar topic......
Posted by UnhookedSchnook 1 year ago
UnhookedSchnook
I somewhat agree Hutch. However there is not often absolute certainty in many scientific cases, so then it becomes a matter of what hypothesis has more supporting evidence and thus more probable. Although there is no evidence that spells out 'GOD DOES NOT EXIST' there is a lot of evidence that suggest there is no reason for a god and that god's only spoken word (the bible) has many mistakes and contradictions. However many people fail to see the evidence, I assume, because religion is built upon fear and power. In which case it seems sort of stupid to devote your life and your beliefs based around a series of books that were created to keep bronze age peasants from mutiny. It is even stupider to further base society and law off of such beliefs.

No offence to anyone <3.
Posted by Hutch96 1 year ago
Hutch96
This is impossible to prove for either party and the debating does become meaningless around this subject.

The main thing I think people should bring forward is why should any religion or belief be right over every other belief out there. Religion is governed a lot by where you are born and raised as well as the society you live in and to say one god exists over another is rather a meaningless argument to say the least.
No votes have been placed for this debate.