The Instigator
Rhythmichunter
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
bman77
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

There is good evidence that the Christian 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 463 times Debate No: 44965
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Rhythmichunter

Con

After being deeply disappointed by the lack of response from my initial debate opponent, I have decided to revamp my original debate to something more specific. I will be arguing that there is no evidence that the Christian God exists.

Rounds will go as follows:

Round 1: Acceptance of debate by opponent and his/her terms
Round 2: Opening Statement
Round 3: 1st Rebuttal
Round 4: 2nd Rebuttal
Round 5: Closing Statement

I want to have a meaningful debate about this issue.
bman77

Pro

I will do my best to present a case for Yahweh. I understand that the Bop is on me, but I ask that the audience try to keep an open mind when voting.

I would like that we refer to the Christian god as Yahweh, as this is what he is called in the ancient Hebrew language.

I also ask that all dialogue within the debate and in the comments remain respectful. I understand this is a sensitive subject, but I want to discuss it in a respectful manner.

I wish Con a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Rhythmichunter

Con

Thank you pro for accepting this debate! I agree that the audience should examine both of our arguments very carefully when voting.

If pro does not mind, I would like to copy my original first round post from a previous debate I had that was forfeited by my previous opponent. It was on a similar subject, and I do not want to have to waste my time typing out an entirely new set of paragraphs that will say essentially the same thing.

First and foremost, the greatest issue I believe pro must address is the issue of faith. Many Christians,regardless of their denomination, say that in order to believe in their God you must have faith. This by definition makes the God of Christianity no more reasonable than Vishnu, Apollo, Thor, Adonis, Allah, or any other deity. Faith literally is belief without evidence, thereby making a "faithful" Christian an irrational one.

However, my opponent may disagree with this. My opponent may say he has evidence of this God's existence and try any number of arguments for the existence of God, such as the famous First Cause argument, the argument from design, Thomas Aquinas's five proofs, or the Ontological Argument. These are merely the tip of the iceberg, but if my opponent wants to demonstrate that the belief is reasonable, he must present a non-fallacious argument that is both sound and valid for the existence of his God. In any other case, such a belief is unwarranted and, as I've said, unnecessary and not based in empiricism.

Notice that I am not making any claims of my own. The burden of proof does not lie on me to prove that the belief in the Christian God is irrational, it is merely upon my opponent to prove that it isn't. My goal will be to scrutinize each of his arguments with extreme prejudice, and show that they are fallacious. If my opponent shows me an argument that meets all of my requirements, I will immediately rest my case. My criterion is reasonable because it allows for the best information possible to be discussed about this God. It will not be emotional banter, it will not be vulgar, it will not be juvenile. It is unfortunate that many secularists and theists often engage in arguments that are non-nonsensical, that are based on emotional pleas, or logical fallacies, rather than sound discussion. I thank pro for appearing to understand this and wishing to engage in a fruitful debate.

My opponent's apologetics will come from one of the following four categories:

Thomistic: Through the use of philosophical arguments, my opponent will attempt to support the existence of the Christian God.

Evidentialism: This will require my opponent to use empirical evidence, such as archaeology, biology, chemistry, and other sciences to justify belief in God.

Presuppositional: Perhaps my least favorite form of apologetics to have to debate against, my opponent in this case would assert that belief in God and the truth of the Bible are foundational assumptions.

Natural Revelationism: This will require that my opponent attempts to prove certain areas of scripture to prove the existence of the Christian God.

In each case, I will address the argument thoroughly, hopefully to the satisfaction of the audience.

To recap, in order for my opponent to support his claim that it is rational to believe in the Christian God, he must first show that faith is not unreasonable. Next, he must put up his own sound arguments, that cannot be logically refuted by myself. If he cannot do this, then I think it would be reasonable to conclude that he has failed to support his premise, thereby confirming that it is indeed an unreasonable belief. If this is truly the case, then I think we can conclude that there is no evidence that Yahweh exists.
bman77

Pro

I'm very sorry for this delay but do to some recent events, I was not able to get my argument written by the deadline. I promise to have it done by the next round.

Again I apologize for the delay.
Debate Round No. 2
Rhythmichunter

Con

I extend my original arguments.
bman77

Pro

bman77 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Rhythmichunter

Con

Rhythmichunter forfeited this round.
bman77

Pro

bman77 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Rhythmichunter

Con

Rhythmichunter forfeited this round.
bman77

Pro

bman77 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Rhythmichunter 2 years ago
Rhythmichunter
In this case, pro has the BOP.
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
Who has the BoP?
No votes have been placed for this debate.