The Instigator
qopel
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Albert
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

The existence of a Biblical God

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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...
Albert
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,945 times Debate No: 31683
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (40)
Votes (6)

 

qopel

Con

The burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim (pro).
Albert

Pro

Existed imply it used to exist, and existence of Biblical God is the topic.

Existed argument.
From scientific evidence we understand the Roman Empire once existed. We cannot show it exists today by presenting a Roman Caesar, but we know the Roman Empire changed over time into a Catholic Roman State.
Modern Rome is evidence of the former Catholic Roman Empire, and although we cannot prove the previous Roman Empires exists from this, we can provide proof that it did change.
To say simply, though something previous existed, then changed to what we today recognize to exist, doesn't mean what formerly existed has no evidence to currently exist today.
An example would be the last surviving male by the name of Steve, then later loses both legs and changes his name to SteveN. It would be ignorant to say Steve no longer exists due to physical and name change. That man indeed exists.
Granted this example and argument cannot be applied to all scientific fields, it does conclude that evidence for the former is useful for the present.

Jesus.
Ancient historians cannot find any shred of evidence against Jesus' existence, and all agree Jesus Christ of Nazareth has more historical evidence then Alexander the Great.
The evidence to support Jesus claim to deity and supreme authority over death, is the resurrection and unexplainable explosion of a cult who followed a risen Lord. Regardless of theories to the cause, the evidence supports explosion of the faith as a historical event that influenced the world.
Secular Roman writings record the founding principle of their message, that Jesus is worshiped as God who rose from the dead.
Islamic ideologies confirm Christian doctrine that Jesus was witnessed after his death by hundreds. But Islam wanted to correct Christian doctrine by insisting Allah created a delusion for them, and Jesus didn't die.
Islamic teaching may no appear valid for this conversation, but it's important to note social beliefs of the time. Islam began around the end of the 7th CE, nearly 700 years after Jesus was witnessed by many. Yet the belief remained constant, adding credibility to original claims.
Other such examples are the execution of all but one disciple John. Unlike other cult followings where peer pressure is used to assist mass suicide by drowning or poison, the twelve disciplines suffered separately. Living with the knowledge that torture and death is their ultimate reality, it would seriously question anyone's wiliness to continue unless genuine.
If the twelve disciples were killed within the same year, it could be from zealous fervour and charisma. However the deaths were as follows.
James 44 A.D - Phillip 54 - James the lesser 63 - Peter 64 -Paul 67.
Matthew 60-70 - Andrew 70 - Thomas 70 - Barnabas 70 - Matthias 70.
Judas Thaddeus 72 - Simon 74.
John died of old age at 95AD. Although it's reported they tried to stone and boil him to death but failed. Eventually exiled to Pathos.

Barnabas was faced with the choice to renounce his witness of Jesus the risen Lord. Or be skinned alive (flayed) then killed without peer pressure cheering him on. It raises a serious logical question about how serious his claim is. His claim was, he also witnessed Jesus rise from the dead.
James it's recorded:
Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History II.2) both tell how the executioner witnessed the courage and un-recanting spirit of James and was then convinced of Christ resurrection and was executed along with James.
The executioner was convinced of the resurrection of Christ by the visible determination shown by James, that he saw Jesus risen body.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org...

Criticism.
It goes without saying, and need not to mention humans wiliness to die for religion such as Islam. But what's important to note is the disciples willingness to torture and death for what they witnessed.
It begs a serious question when Barnabas is facing flaying alive because of a lie, how serious is his testimony? I wonder how many liars in court would confess as the skin on their spin is peeled off. These events deserve serious consideration.

Claims of Jesus
Taking into account of Steve/Steven used in my example, we've already asserted he's the last surviving male. But what if Steven claims to a female only tribe in the Amazon that he's the last surviving male? Claims without evidence mean nothing, unless there's proof.
In Stevens case, he'd need proof no other male lives currently, or if the Amazon tribe rejects his claim - which ultimately cause all human life to die due to lack of reproduction, we'd conclude Stevens claim was almost certainly true.
Obviously it can be said it's not entirely true that the death of all human life due to lack of males, it could be because Bob who lived in a cave never met the Amazon tribe. However it doesn't disprove Stevens claim, but indicates it's most defiantly certain Steven was the last male.

Jesus claimed to be God, and would rise after death, and he'd be with Christian followers whenever they met. Jesus explained change would occur for Him and his followers. The disciplines claimed to witness Jesus in a heavenly body, with scares and ability to walk through walls and appear suddenly and even eat food.
If credible historical events confirm his claim to rise from death in three days, then his claim must be carefully reviewed.

Jesus existed to existence.
If their is enough evidence to support the claims of the historical Jesus who existed, and historical accounts from Rome, Islam and common society that remained consistently throughout time. Then Jesus claim to overcome death and be God in the flesh cannot be easily ignored. The historical account of the explosion of Christian faith and death of disciples begin to accumulate momentum that Jesus claim was almost certainly creditable.
Debate Round No. 1
qopel

Con

The only thing that can be proved is that a person named Jesus walked the earth. Jesus was a popular name in those times. If Jesus claimed to be God, it doesn't prove that he was, in fact, God. It was an empty claim.
The resurrection, was not proved. It was only mentioned in the Bible, which is not proof of anything.
Albert

Pro

-If Jesus claimed to be God, it doesn't prove that he was, in fact, God.

-It was an empty claim.

-The resurrection, was not proved. It was only mentioned in the Bible, which is not proof of anything.

All three points were addressed in round one with logical reasoning and criticism for each point. The example of Steven illustrates evidence in various forms, and concluding it's highly likely, opposed to highly unlikely. You need to submit a debate on this topic.

The resurrection without proof follows similarly.

---

Although we cannot prove what existed, exists today - we can see proof that it did change, to what exists today.

If something once existed but then changed, then such change does not undermine it's potential to exist today.
Debate Round No. 2
qopel

Con

The burden of proof was on my opponent to prove the existence of a Biblical God.

Making claims without evidence isn't proof.
Neither is "logical reasoning". Without evidence, there is no proof.

No proof was given that the Bible has any actual proof.

My opponent failed to prove the existence of a Biblical God.
Albert

Pro

Clearly my opponent isn't interested in debating, since debating is more then 'just saying'. Debating involves listening to reasoning and logic, comprehension and taking into consideration every element.


What a waste.

Your points were already listed in my own criticism, so I fail to see you actually argue. Factually speaking I argued my point and argument reasons against with conclusions.

Go me.


Debate Round No. 3
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
Albert, all you know how to do is cut and paste. It figures that someone who can't think for themselves, thinks there's a God.
Posted by rottingroom 4 years ago
rottingroom
qopel: you are right about the burden of proof but in an a priori argument empirical evidence is not necessarily valid. Besides there are plenty of atheists on DDO that do a great job at arguing their points against religious a priori claims.
Posted by Albert 4 years ago
Albert
Sure sure
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
Most voters here don't even bother to read the debates. They just vote based on what others do.
Posted by Albert 4 years ago
Albert
edit*As noted, if you were actually seeking proof by spamming DDO with these debates, vote bombing wouldnt concern you.
Posted by Albert 4 years ago
Albert
Accepted and apparently winning, which means nothing apart from restoring my trust in DDO member's ability to discern each debate on merit without bias.

As noted, if you were actually seeking proof without by spamming DDO with these debates, vote bombing wouldnt concern you.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
What exactly is a trapping debate? A debate you decide to accept?
Posted by Albert 4 years ago
Albert
If your interested in truth, why would winning or losing indicated by numbers mean anything?

If your sincerely after the truth, you'd debate to learn, not for +1 on your profile. This seems to exactly the case in your attempt to create trapping debates.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
The burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim (pro).
Making a lame argument isn't proving anything.
Either you voters don't understand the rules of the debate or you just love to vote bomb me.
Posted by Albert 4 years ago
Albert
Bladerunner said:
"You could have brought up that even if Jesus DID rise from the dead, that did not, in itself, prove the biblical God.

You could have demolished the "Well, Barnabas was FLAYED for his belief, so it must have been true" argument by pointing out, if nothing else, that Barnabas could have been MISTAKEN.

You could have brought up the glaring historical inaccuracies in the bible."

All very good points which deserve sifting to find any credible value.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by po.osullivan 4 years ago
po.osullivan
qopelAlbertTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro put forth an argument. It really wasn't a good argument, and could have easily been refuted, given that it was substantiated heavily on inference (e.g. Barnabas' refusal to recant his testimony proves that there was a resurrection), but it was still an argument. Replying to that argument by saying only the bible mentions resurrection is incorrect. For one, Barnabas mentioned resurrection, and that's not a disputed fact. Con never put forth an alternate reason for Barnabas' testimony. Pro did demonstrate that the existance of a biblical god was possible, and his points were never refuted. Therefore, I have to give him my vote. Con did not help himself with his childish behavior in the debates or in the comments either. I look forward to his future debate with his hand-selected opponent.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
qopelAlbertTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
qopelAlbertTied
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: Pro wrote out a well-researched argument that seems to affirm the existence of the Biblical God by appealing to the historical case for Jesus's resurrection, which certainly provides a compelling case for the existence of Pro's specific God. Con really didn't even attempt a counter, which leads me to sympathize with Pro due to the work he seems to have put into the argument. Then, the debate ended. Arguments to Albert.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
qopelAlbertTied
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: Pro gave arguments for why we should think Jesus was raised from the dead, and Con responded with "The resurrection, was not proved. It was only mentioned in the Bible, which is not proof of anything." But Pro's argument was nothing like, "Since the Bible says Jesus was raised from the dead, then Jesus was raised from the dead." Pro made an argument from the resurrection to God, but Con ignored that argument.
Vote Placed by kingsjester 4 years ago
kingsjester
qopelAlbertTied
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: This is to counter Jarhyn's S&G and sources vote. Qopel had no sources and there was nothing wrong with Pros grammar. I will give props to qopel that he wasnt rude as he usually is in his rounds so if qopel wins this debate i hope he wins fairly and not by someone giving him free source and S&G points.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
qopelAlbertTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO used the bible as a source, yet has the burden to establish that the bible is anything but the words of men. As this was PRO's only argument and he carried the BOP, PRO forfeit both sources and convincing. Further, S&G to CON to because pro's grammar is extremely difficult to parse.