The Instigator
Con (against)
10 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

There is Undeniable, Empirical, Impartial Evidence for The Resurrection Of Jesus

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,310 times Debate No: 43558
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (70)
Votes (3)




I will Allow Pro the privalege of giving all the Evidence for his case First.
I will then respond to Pro's evidence.
Pro will have a chance of mounting a final case for his defense.

Firstly I'll simply define the term Evidence.

In Science which is this category:
Evidence must be verifiable by those wishing to research.
Science judges evidence on it's empirical strengths.
In the case of historical evidence for an event.
1 - Was it from independent sources?
2 - Were those sources contemporary eye-witnesses?
3 - Is there Archaeological Evidence existing for the Event?
4 - Is there documentation from contemporary non-witnesses close to the event, such
as local dignitaries, officials, historians or personal contacts with those witnessing the event.
5 - If the Event was miraculous and paranormal, which in Historical Science is an event of least Probability:Is the evidence so overwhelmingly fantastic and strong that it
is absolutely undisputable?

For something as magical and supernatural as somebody being resurrected from the dead, to be accepted in Historical research, it must confirm a definite, Indisputable YES to all 5 questions.
A failing on any one of those, and, no, Jesus or actually nobody was ever Resurrected.

Because a Supernatural event such as a Resurrection must have Supernatural Evidence.

The belief of millions of people and presentation of hand-me-down, or hearsay evidence long after de-fact is definitely not supernatural.

As in a thousand years time, the same could be said about Superman as is now said about Jesus. Though Gotham City didn't exist, but, neither did Nazareth while Jesus lived.

Your turn Pro?????


You done over stepped yourself boy, this is a Mississippi god fearin red neck you're dealin with. Don't tread on me son cause your about to get shut down.

1. If god aint real then how come we are here?
2.why is god answerin my prayers?
3.dont you think if we didn't have the good lords guidance we would still lack morality and complete understanding of the universe that we have?
4. god created the universe in 7 days.. not jus earth
5. why did we ever develop senses?
6. Why in the sam hill are we even arguing this boy?
7. evolution is a scam made by the devil!
8.god fearin Christians are morally good! so don't you think that's gud proof?
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Pro for taking up the task.
Though I do find that your argument is entirely Off Topic.
This is about finding proof that Jesus of The New Testament was Resurrected.
From your challenge, it appears that you have no such Proof.
God is not the Basis of Christianity,
Jesus Christ is the Basis of Your Christianity.
The God is the God of Abraham which is also the Basis of Judaism and Islam.
So essentially you are saying you are a Jew and an Muslim, because your argument is for their God as well.
Yet, you claim to be a Redneck Christian, whose religion is based entirely on the story of the Resurrection of Jesus.]
Though some Christian churches, now consider that the Resurrection was only Metaphorical.
If there was any real evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus of (some place that was not Nazareth), then those churches would not be in the position where they have to consider it as only a Metaphor to keep believers.

On the question of the existence of the God of Abraham and Proof of the Resurrection of Jesus, I will let Modern Philosophers and New Testament Scholars answer that for me.
Firstly on God and Pro's religious standing, from a highly respected modern Philosopher in Sam Harris.

Secondly on the Resurrection from one of the highest New Testament Scholars alive.
Bart Ehrman.

I have only 2 questions regarding the Biblical, Old Testament God that Pro is attempting to Assert the Existence of, though without providing any Genuine, Testable Evidence for.

Q1: If God created the Universe, Where did the God Come From if Time did not Exist Prior to the Creation Of The Universe?
Q2: If God is such a Good God, then why is the Bible God such a Malevolent, Narcissistic, Murderous, Megalomaniac?
BTW: The Bible does actually have sections where God admits these Qualities for itself.'
Q3: If God is The Source of Morality, why were other Godless cultures that existed before the time the Bible was created were also Equally Moral.
Q4: Why does the Bible God set such a bad Example of Morality if it was supposed to be the epitome of Morality.

Jesus or those writing the Gospels borrowed Eastern philosophies (Do unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You) for Christianity, as those philosophies existed centuries before Jesus was born.

I look forward to Pro's Redneck response!
As I have always been curious how Rednecks approach those questions.
I'm interested in learning your concepts.


Elenchus123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
70 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
The Bible:
Moses didn't Exist nor save any Slaves.
Jesus never saved anybody from death, nor did he even save himself (Resurrection).
There is no earthly evidence for Moses and Jesus.

Thus belief in Moses nor Jesus cannot be substantiated.

Judaism is unsubstantiated, though it is thus a real Fact that Christianity is an even more, Unsubstantiated Belief System. Technically I should say Christianity is less substantiated than Judaism because it is based on Judaism to begin with or false Messianic Prophesies that Jesus didn't fulfill anyway.

Regardless of how you would like to spin it.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
The problem with your concepts is that they are all Subjective, woo woo, nothing real in any of them.

Your concepts are all baseless, thus they can be disregarded entirely.

You have no evidence any of what you have stated is real.

Even the Bible does not support you there.

A typical apologist, writer of Porkies for porkies sake.
This is why I did not want to become a Theologian or Porky Ponderer like my friend was for those 30 odd years.
Porkies do not make good arguments, in any debate.
Posted by Red-Hex 2 years ago
all that being said, ultimately what you choose to believe in is your right. It is not my place to say you are wrong and impose my ideals upon you. I apologize if did at all. I wish you the best Sagey. Thank you for being a good fight :) time for me to go.
Posted by Red-Hex 2 years ago
Oh I would have only used the Bible, which would have, I'll say, more than likely have guaranteed your victory* I honestly don't enjoy this type of debating since it has rules and regulations >_> when in fact the truth can exist outside our rules and regulations. Like um, a guy is facing the death penalty(though he did not actually commit the murder), but ALL the evidence says he did, so he gets executed anyways, kina thing.
Posted by Red-Hex 2 years ago
-It seems very rational actually, it doesn't make sense to put stock in things that were never truly validated to be correct. In order to be validated to be correct there needed to someone who understood the concepts already. Like you could say, there would have had to been someone who knew everything about mathematics(lol this even promotes God's existence even more) there to tell the "creator" of mathematics he/she was correct. S'not hard to understand. But there, wasn't anyone, if you don't believe there's is a God, so basically ya, we said this makes sense lets go with it and boom. Illogical

-Whether Christianity is a Substantiated Belief System??
Now that'd be fun!
->Definition: substantiate
provide evidence to support or prove the truth of.

-Very easy, since you will possess a bias toward using Man's methods, it make complete logical sense that you would be a naysayer. So here ya go, I lose. Why? The Bible is not trusted by most so called intellectuals, since their methods can't justify it. Because everyone, thinking rationally, will posses roughly this same way of thinking and probably also dubbed my "idea of Logical Thinking" as illogical thinking as well. No one wants to hear that the classes they've taken throughout life to further their intelligence could actually have been a complete waste of time. Such is in a way, quite a taboo generally I assume.

But, honestly, the Truth will be proven in the future anyways. Put stock in 99% correct ideals as much as you wish. I would say build a time machine and go back to see for yourself what happened, but "time" doesn't literally exist so..ya. Meh it's seriously been a long day. Oh nice my grandparents are 67, and ya I get that, I don't care about people knowing my age so I just let it lose lol
Posted by Red-Hex 2 years ago
On Moses: "The existence of Moses as well as the veracity of the Exodus story are disputed among archaeologists and Egyptologists, with experts in the field of biblical criticism citing logical inconsistencies, new archaeological evidence, historical evidence, and related origin myths in Canaanite culture.[3][4][5] Other historians maintain that the biographical details and Egyptian background attributed to Moses imply the existence of a historical political and religious leader who was involved in the consolidation of the Hebrew tribes in Canaan towards the end of the Bronze Age."

--logical inconsistencies that exist because we aren't 100% accurate blah blah Why do I care about what other people see and understand about this? The human capacity for misunderstanding anything is way to high to put any value in this lol right now if a lady with a gun walked into your house suddenly the average person would innately assume she's there to kill them, when in fact the reality of the situation could vary greatly in soooo many ways. They're right because others say their right? or because the methods that "work" justify them? I'm beginning to wonder how much logic or reason really exists in our people.

--who cares about what historians believe

--Explain what you found ridiculous >:D

-"BTW: Belief in Jesus Christ cannot be Historically Justified.

Thus Christianity is an Unsubstantiated Belief-System.

Because there is no evidence that Jesus performed a single miracle, saved anybody nor was resurrected.
They are all entirely Mythical.

There is absolutely no Justification in being a Christian."

- I I addressed this..well anyways, ya duh He can't be historically justified. Or rather though can be, if you really want this to matter, be unjustified. If you find His corpse. Good luck.

-Unsubstantiated by our methods blah blah. So Caesar stubbed his toe once, but we have no visual records or accounts of it so it must not of happened ever. >_>
Posted by Red-Hex 2 years ago
oops "not" serpents lol
Posted by Red-Hex 2 years ago
Phew, I'm typing too much lately lol ok where to begin.

1) Serpent eating dust problem:
-Genesis 3:14-14 So the Lord God said -->to the serpent<--, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are -->you<-- above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life."
-You assume the punishment was for ALL snakes? :o clearly says "to the serpent" not it's kin or something. God's only talking to that serpent >_>;
-oh and earthworms are technically serpents lol

2) Oh and I solved that 30 year guys problem, look back a few pages lol it wasn't that complicated, took like 4 hrs. Most who misunderstand the Bible tend to disregard it, it's a natural reaction if it doesn't make sense to you. Problem with that is, just because you misunderstand it, you think it's wrong. Or ex-believer, because you can't justify it with human sciences and methods, surely it must be invalid. Because you know, all the methods we use are completely 100% accurate all the time. >_>;

3) You continue basing your beliefs in regards to this on the opinions of men. I can't really simplify the problem with doing that any more than I did v_v Hmmm, maybe I can say it this way:
-Man deemed himself knowledgeable, therefore he must be. This the thinking, simplified down it's most basic level. We created mathematics(for example), and patterns emerged that were to our liking and worked for us so we deemed mathematics accurate. The problem with this is, we harp so much on checking our work, backing ourselves up with examples using knowledge gained from other like minded(in terms of thought process) individuals. Who had the ability to back up the creator(s) of Mathematics? Who had the knowledge to verify that person(or people) was 100% accurate? No one. A pattern that worked was seen, then promoted to society, but it was never "truthfully" verified to be 100% accurate by anyone. This is the case with all of our theories(innately not 100%)
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
I worked in IT for 20 years and know that it is not a good idea to give too much accurate info about yourself on public spaces, they can track me by my IP, but it is not good to give actual name, age, nor location or personal contact info to anybody on a public forum. It's smart to be a little elusive.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
BTW: Red: I'm not actually 88, nearer to 60, but D.o. wouldn't let me be 120, for some reason.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TrueScotsman 2 years ago
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: After doing some digging, I have reason to believe that this is likely the same person. I therefore am voting to make it a tie. Elenchus123 elsewhere makes similar arguments against theism, with a similar writing style.
Vote Placed by Ramshutu 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Bad spelling and grammar from pro. Conduct to con as pro forfeited and. Arguments to con as he actually made an argument where it seems that pro, essentially trolled.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I almost suspect both accounts are by the same person because a real debate wasn't wanted. Either way I will give them the benefit of the doubt. Pro loses grammar for misspelled loses conduct for the trolling and the forfeit. Con had a better argument. And neither cited sources