The Instigator
FritzStammberger
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Deadlykris
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

There is good evidence that God exists.

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 15 votes the winner is...
Deadlykris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,001 times Debate No: 29611
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (79)
Votes (15)

 

FritzStammberger

Pro

There is good evidence that God exists.
Deadlykris

Con

I accept. You have the burden of proof, of course.

Definitions:
God: the Abrahamic god which the Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship; YHWH.
Good evidence: evidence which can be backed up via extra-biblical sources.
Debate Round No. 1
FritzStammberger

Pro

Fact 1: The God of the bible came to Earth and lived for over 30 years as Jesus of Nazareth. This is recorded history. No competent historian will argue against the historicity of Jesus.

Fact 2: Jesus was crucified on a cross and was resurrected the third day, after which he was seen by over 500 people.

Fact 3: Jesus fulfilled over 400 prophecies set forth in the old testament books, a mathematical and statistical impossibility for anyone other than God himself.

Fact 4: God maintains a personal relationship with billions of humans alive today.

Fact 5: God loves you.
Deadlykris

Con

Point 1: There is no contemporary extrabiblical historical account of the life of Jesus. By "contemporary" I mean within the commonly-accepted date range in which he was considered to have been born, through up to 10 years after his supposed demise. Furthermore, many major historical events within the bible relating to his birth and life contradict extrabiblical historical records, such as the fact that Herod the Great was dead before the first Roman census took place.[1] The last sentence of your first point is debatable, and irrelevant being that it's an appeal to authority rather than evidence.

Point 2: No contemporary extrabiblical source records such an event, as I mentioned in my response to your first point.

Point 3: This does not prove his existence. An alternative explanation is that the legend was created in such a way as to fulfill these prophecies. Therefore this statement is meaningless.

Point 4: Or, it may just be conjecture and self-delusion on the part of the believers. Human memory is notoriously unreliable, and the eyes are easily fooled. At any rate this is nothing more than an "argumentum ad populum" fallacy.

Point 5: This statement is meaningless to someone who doesn't believe such a being exists. It cannot be considered fact, especially in a debate about the very existence of the being in question.

[1] http://www.infidels.org...
Debate Round No. 2
FritzStammberger

Pro

Point 1. The Biblical accounts are themselves historic documentation and therefore have historic merit in themselves.
Let's remember that at the time these New testament documents were just a collection of letters sent to certain churches.

1 Corinthians: 15 is the fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians by Paul the Apostle. The first eleven verses are the earliest account of theResurrection appearances of Jesus in the New Testament.

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles."

The antiquity of the creed has been located by most biblical scholars to no more than five years after Jesus' death, probably originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community.

Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote,

"This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text,"

whilst A. M. Hunter said,

"The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

1.2 Roman Census

Luke and Josephus may not be talking about the same event.

or

In Justin Martyr's Apology he writes Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea. As Gleason Archer writes, "In order to secure efficiency and dispatch, it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the 7 A.D. census." Archer also says that Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch.
If Quirinius did hold such a position, then we have no contradiction. The first census was taken during the time of Jesus birth, but Josephus' census would have come later.

http://www.comereason.org...

1.3 "No competent historian will argue against the historicity of Jesus."

- I agree that this is an appeal to authority. But it is worth noting that nearly every single competent historian agrees that Jesus was a historical figure. No one is disputing that.

Let's move on"

Point 2 Non biblical accounts of the crucifixion

Why do you insist on historical accounts that are extra biblical?
The historical accounts that were collected into the new testament were collected precisely because they were the earliest and most reliable accounts. Why would you ignore these accounts that date to within one generation of Jesus lifetime.

never the less;

1.Josephus" born in AD 37
A.In antiquities 12, chapter 5,
B.Antiquities 17: Book 10,
2.Ignatius d. 117
A. Ignatius (Epistle to the Ephesians, 16).
3.Justin Martyr"" 100 - 165
A.First Apology, 61,
4.Tertullian 160 - 220
A.Against Praxeas, 1).
5.Origen 185 - 254
Cyprian d. 258
7.John Chrysostom"" 347 - 407
8.Ambrose 337 - 397
(Two Books Concerning Repentance, 2:4:24, 2:4:26).
9.Augustine" 354 -" 430
(Expositions on the Psalms, 99:8)
Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)
10.Cyril of Alexandria""" 376 - 444
http://carm.org...

I rest my case.

Point 3 Jesus fulfilled over 400 prophecies set forth in the old testament books, a mathematical and statistical impossibility for anyone other than God himself.

you said;

"An alternative explanation is that the legend was created in such a way as to fulfill these prophecies."

According to the Christian church, the four Gospels were written by the apostles and/or those under the direction of the apostles of Jesus. That means that they were written under direction of eyewitnesses of the actual events.

Luke was written before Acts (Acts 1:1). The book of Acts is a history of the Christian church, which doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem either, nor does it record the deaths of Paul, James, and Peter which all happened in the early 60's. This means that Acts was written at least by A.D. 62 and Luke was written before that. Therefore, the time between the events and the writings is around 30 years. This further means that eyewitnesses were around who could have corrected any statements written in the gospels. Yet, we have absolutely no corrective or contradictory writings from that time, from anyone, denying the accounts of the gospels.

The gospel accounts are four different accounts from four different people. They were penned by either eyewitnesses or under the direction of the eyewitnesses. These same gospels were distributed throughout the region very quickly and we have no account anywhere on any of the contemporaries attempting to refute any of the facts written in them including those accounts dealing with the miracles of Jesus.

Conclusion

- In order for Jesus to be a myth, it would have to be shown that the gospel accounts were highly embellished and inaccurately copied and transmitted.

Point 4
"God maintains a personal relationship with billions of humans alive today."

- you chalk this up to "delusion"

There is no reason to believe that great thinkers of history such as C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther, St. Thomas Aquinas, Francis A. Schaeffer, G.K. Chesterton, george Macdonald and billions upon billions of others throughout history and alive today are or were merely "delusional". I don't think that any of these people I mentioned showed any signs of being delusional. On the contrary it is the atheist which denies the existence of God who is delusional.

"You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me"; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?
- Isaiah 29:16

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"
- 2 thess 2:11

Point 5 "God loves you."

1. If jesus of Nazareth was God in the flesh and came to die for our sins then God loves you.

2. Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. He lived a life free from sin, he was crucified on a Roman cross and was raised back to life.

3. By accepting Jesus as Lord you can be forgiven of all your sins because of what he has done for you.

4. Jesus is Lord

5. He died for you.

6. He loves you.

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
1 John 4:10

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
- John 15:13

CONCLUSION

God exists. God came to earth and lived as a man for over 30 years.

The evidence is sufficient to prove Gods existence for those
"with eyes to see".

*SUPER BONUS EVIDENCE FOR GODS EXISTENCE*

1.the cosmological argument from contingency
2.the kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
3.the moral argument based upon objective moral values and duties
4.the teleological argument from fine-tuning
5.the ontological argument from the possibility of God"s existence to his actuality

These are ALL good arguments for God"s existence. They are logically valid; their premises are true; and their premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their negations.

soften your heart friend and come to the Lord Jesus Christ. amen
Deadlykris

Con

First, I'll address the issue of my requiring extrabiblical accounts. Basically it comes down to reliability. The more sources that agree, the more reliable we can consider the accounts. It's not specifically discounting the bible, it's simply requiring more.

That said...
Point 1: without extrabiblical corroboration, I cannot consider the events of the bible as being historically accurate. There is too much contradiction within the pages of the bible to even consider it seriously as a source on its own, so thus requires more reliable writings to clarify it and verify it. If such writings exist, they haven't been found.

Point 1.2: You're grasping at straws. The fact remains that no census was conducted by the Romans in Israel within the lifetime of Herod. This is a matter of historical record preserved from Roman times.

Point 1.3: Looks as though you dropped this argument.

Point 2:
Josephus was too young to be considered a contemporary historian. He came after. His works are also suspect for reasons not related to his late arrival; many believe the single mention of Jesus in his writings was added at a later date.
Ignatius of Antioch was only two years older than Josephus.
The rest can't even be reasonably considered to be contemporary historians by any stretch of the imagination. If this is the foundation on which you rest your case, it's weak and rickety foundation at best.

Point 3:
I don't think you understand that the credibility of the Church is unreliable for the purposes of this debate. That credibility relies on the consistency of the bible, and said consistency simply isn't there. Refer back to the link in my R2 argument. There's a plethora of biblical contradictions listed there.
In response to your Point 3 conclusion, there's the hypothesis that the story was written as an allegory.

Point 4
I didn't say they were generally delusional. I said they suffered from self-delusion in regards to this one point. Your whole argument on this point is a non-sequitur.

Point 5
Subpoints 1 and 5 imply some sort of sacrifice. But the legend says he stayed dead three whole days and then resurrected, pranced about a bit, and then buggered off back to his father. I hardly call that sacrifice.
Subpoint 2 is clearly refuted by other points in this round and my previous round.
Subpoint 3 is irrelevant. I can't be forgiven for misdeeds by someone who wasn't a party to those misdeeds.
Subpoint 4: I have no lord, so this is irrelevant.
Subpoint 6: Captain Planet loves you. That means as much to you as Jesus loving me means to me. Both are pointless statements about a fictional character.

As for your "super bonus" evidence:
1: A First Cause is not necessarily a powerful, intelligent being, or even a being at all. There are things happening in supposed nothingness that science is just now barely even able to detect, much less explain.
2: Nothing in the KCA refutes my preceding statement.
3: Objective morality is a myth. The truth of subjective morality is plain to see, "for those with eyes to see."
4: The teleological argument is a fallacy of switched cause and effect; the universe seems fine-tuned to the existence of life as we know it, not because it is, but because life as we know it is of necessity fine-tuned to the universe as it exists. Were it "fine tuned" differently, life would look much different.
5: The ontological argument is nothing but a word game, with no true meaning in actual fact.
I think I have shown logical reasons why each of these arguments fails to be proof of the existence of a god.

In conclusion, I believe I've undermined any and all arguments made by my opponent for the supposed existence of Jesus. I've shed sufficient doubt upon the historicity of Jesus that his burden of proof fails. I will not try to tell you who to vote for, but I hope you can agree that my arguments were sound, regardless of your personal beliefs on the matter.

FritzStammberger, it's been a pleasure debating you on this matter. May the best arguments win.
Debate Round No. 3
79 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Reality 9:33--In real life, a hooker as gorgeous as Julia Roberts, without Captain Save-A-Ho, probably takes $100,000 deal and she becomes a porn star or ends up with some other promoter of "talent". Now that may or may not be able to be proven. Its all probability. Would a hooker take a $100,000 deal, if you think the probability is High, you are right, and your logic and reason are proving to be working :)

fitz, just relax, its ok to let go of the tit, its ok to live life without the guilt of sexuality dragging you down, its ok to be good because you want too, and it makes you feel good, Not because you are avoiding punishment or gaining reward after death :)

There is far more virtue in ones charity, when that charity is done for no other reason than it makes sense to benefit Mankind, just like it makes sense to Not touch a hot stove.

Mankind is very intelligent and loving, an individual human, is a dumb, violent cry baby :)

GameOver 9:47--The same logic and reason people use to slay zeus and annilihate Leprechauns at the end of rainbows guarding a pot of gold, or the simple obvious logic and reason we apply to elves living in a tree, however, when it comes to whether or Not the reason for all the stars and galaxies is concerned with what we do naked and who we have sex with and why, you seem to abandon logic and reason like a supermodel deciding she wants to end up marrying a 69yr old man thats been living homless on the streets for the last 48 yrs, some things are just statistical improbabilities. Isnt it interesting that everything else in life that has no evidence, like zeus, you dismiss easily, howerver, when it comes to a divine sex monitor, you cant get enough :)
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Yes, it's presumptuous. But not unduly so.
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
dang, that's too bad. Still, you called it a "lie" and "propaganda" without even watching it. That's a little presumptuous don't you think?
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
I don't have the bandwidth to watch something I want for 1/10th of that time. Seriously. I definitely can't spend that much bandwidth on Christian propaganda.
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
have an open mind for 50 minutes, It might change your life. Ron Wyatt was a man of the highest integrity. He spent his life doing the Lords will and made some absolutely earth shaking archeological discoveries. You won't see this on cnn or the discovery channel. Check it out. don't be closed minded.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
I'm not watching an hour-long lie. My bandwidth is too limited for that inanity.
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
You guys are in for the shock of your life.
Posted by Kaz 4 years ago
Kaz
If I wasn't an antitheist, I'd rather worship Satan than God because He seems exponentially more evil than Satan is.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
"god didn't create it for you he created it for the devil"

That is possible, god is a bitch, I heard one time the de made god prove he was loved and god got so punked he told some guy to go to a mountain and offer his kid as a burnt offering.

If the devil thought he was gonna punk god he had another thing coming, god knows its important to punk the devil, the devil is like skeletor and god is he-man, the devils opinion of god is important or the devil will make fun of god, and you dont want to make god angry, you wouldnt like him when he's angry :)

So the guy did it, and when he was about to light his son on fire, god said "Gotcha, just kidding, get over here and perform fellatio on your sky daddy and the man did :)
Posted by andrewkletzien 4 years ago
andrewkletzien
I didn't say who he created it for... he created it. My stance stands.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
FritzStammbergerDeadlykrisTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: countering imbench's counter, ohio has removed his vote, some1 pls pm me when imabench does too. As for this debate, I thought the material was rather weak on both sides, Pros arguments were not strong but Cons rebuttals were arguably worse, summing up his rebuttal of the model ontological argument as a 'word game.' for example, both sides failed to adequately support their views, with Pro attempting to progress shakey material and Con passively dismissing many of the arguments. I would give this debate an even vote, but like i said, I'm countering an unadjusted vote.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
FritzStammbergerDeadlykrisTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Marauder 4 years ago
Marauder
FritzStammbergerDeadlykrisTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I was not exceptionally impressed by either side, the most serious meat of this debate though was when it got to the part about historians like Josephus. because that point was upheld well I give arguments to Pro. I note Pro did better at defending point 3 than I thought that would could be defended, but points 4 and 5 failed. especially 5 as it does not relate to the resolution. Sources is an obvious as Pro had lots of sources and sourced in every point he made and Con had one measely source and was void of sources where there should have been some like when Con made the claim historians suspect Josephus writings did not include references to Jesus until a later date. that deserved a source more than any other argument Con made and it didnt get one so I discount the argument along with all the other statements about scholors and history data that had not been backed up. Con could of had much greater standing this debate had more sources been used
Vote Placed by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
FritzStammbergerDeadlykrisTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm afraid that Deadlykris is again sabotaging my debates, so I've adopted his voting philosophy and applied it here. Sorry, Kris. :(
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
FritzStammbergerDeadlykrisTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: countering ohio
Vote Placed by DebaterAgent 4 years ago
DebaterAgent
FritzStammbergerDeadlykrisTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's 1st argument didn't seemed to be developed. YOu can't just refer to that "book".
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
FritzStammbergerDeadlykrisTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar to pro because con doesn't capitalize many of his letters. Con has unreliable sources, but pro uses almost none. Convincing arguments to con because pro doesn't meet burden of proof.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
FritzStammbergerDeadlykrisTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I definitely think Pro won the debate, for his first argument alone. Con's contention that the New Testament accounts are in the Bible is irrelevant. The vast majority of historical scholars consider them reliable. Pro is correct that Jesus existing as a historical person is uncontroversial. You may as well argue that Socrates or Alexander the Great never existed. Fact four and five were irrelevant to the topic. Fact four requires a presupposition that God exists, and point five begs the question by assuming God exists. But Pro's first at least stands, as good evidence that God exists. However, Wiploc pointed out that it appears Pro plagiarized, so I can't in good conscience award the win to Pro. Con wins by default.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
FritzStammbergerDeadlykrisTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: See AK's comment for RFD. Sources for the same reason
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
FritzStammbergerDeadlykrisTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a good case based on the Bible. Con tried to refute this by calling the Bible inconsistent, but failed, because he didn't provide sufficient evidence to show the inconsistency of the Bible.