The Instigator
diety
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
pcmbrown
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points

There is proof 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 10 votes the winner is...
pcmbrown
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,208 times Debate No: 8625
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (10)

 

diety

Con

You ought to know that whoever accepts this debate should have the burden of proof. All I have to say is that there is no proof, and by default there isn't.
pcmbrown

Pro

"proof" any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something. wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

"The Christian God" According to widely held Christian beliefs, God is in fact, a Godhead, consisting of the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. However, God is undivided, each of these parts constitutes the entirety of God. Ergo, the Son is equivalent to God (the Son being Jesus Christ). Therefore, the person of Jesus Christ IS the Christian God.

"exist" to have actuality. wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The resolution, therefore, essentially reads: "There is factual, relevant evidence that the person of Jesus Christ has actuality."

A historian named Josephus compiled a history of the Jewish race. In it, he notes: "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ..." [1] Another historian, Tacitus, mentions the existence of Jesus Christ [2]. Both instances suggest Christ's existence.

[1] http://wiki.answers.com...
[2] http://www.infidels.org...
Debate Round No. 1
diety

Con

Ok then pcmbrown. Thank you for accepting this debate.

First of all, you say that because the holy trinity makes the father, son, and holy spirit undivided. This means that Jesus of Nazareth and the father are the same person.

Second of all, I would like to point out that Jesus of Nazareth must live up to all of his claims. He claims omnipotence, omniscence, and omnibenevolence. He also claims to have created the cosmos as well as this planet in just seven days. If he didn't do that then he cannot be classified as the christian god. Doesn't matter if Jesus existed as a person, his failure to meet these criteria means he didn't exist as the christian god, and therefore his existence doesn't dictate that of the christian god's.

Also, you can't get away with just upholding one of these things. All of these things about Jesus have to be correct.

Now for my arguments.

Jesus of Nazareth did exist as a human being. I'm not saying he didn't which makes your sources irrelavent. The question is whether he was a deity.

Now, how could Jesus have created the cosmos when the cosmos existed before he did? Wasn't jesus born? And how could he be the son of man if he created man? That doesn't sound very legit. On top of that, there's no proof to support any of this.

Also, if Jesus was of flesh and had a mind of a human, how could he have known everything? And how is it mathematically possible to know everything? Did he know every single position of every single particle in the universe? Why did he ask 'the father' "why hast thou forsaken me?" when he died. He had to have known if he was omniscient. As I said before, there is no evidence to support any of this.

Also he claims omnipotence. You ought to know that I like to use the paradox of the stone. Can he create a rock too heavy for him to lift? Can he create a problem too difficult for him to solve? Can he create a being too mean for him to love? Omnipotence not only conflicts itself, but conflicts with omniscience and omnibenevolence.

All of these claims affiliated with the christian god have not been confirmed and therefore cannot be considered factual.

Thank you.
pcmbrown

Pro

My opponent concedes that the person of Jesus Christ fully constitutes God, in that proof of the Father and the Holy Spirit is unnecessary. However, he claims that I must prove Jesus' omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. This is not necessary. Christianity is, shall we say...not entirely consistent. Though Christ is attested to constitute God in His entirety, he is not granted the omnipotence and omniscience of God.

Arguments:
1. The Father created the cosmos, as well as man, and subsequently created Jesus. [3]
2. Jesus was never credited with omniscience.
3. Jesus was never credited with omniscience.

Essentially, Jesus is the Christian God. He is stated to be such, though not granted godly qualities. The Christians believe the person of Jesus Christ to be their God, in full. I have proven his existence. Resolution affirmed.

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
diety

Con

Very well then. I am struck curious by a few of your arguments.

First of all, the very source you gave said that the christian god was actually made of three seperate people who are all co-eternal and equal and power. That means that the father has the same ability as the son. Even if you don't credit Jesus with the creation of the cosmos (a different person of god did it), he still needs to be credited with omniscience and omnipotence. If he isn't, how can he be the Christian god in full? Yet again, I am asking what evidence is there that Jesus had these attributes.

Also, let's say hypothetically that the Christian god exists. How would you know that Jesus was the son of God? How do you know Moses, Abraham, or even I am not the son of God? There is no evidence supporting him being a deity.

To me your argument is somewhat inconsistent (not to be rude). You even admit that Christianity is not entirely consistent, which I would like you to clarify on. Please explain to me how Jesus can constitute the Christian god in his entirety AND is supposed to be EQUAL to the father and the holy spirit without being credited with the attributes of the Christian god.

Also, for the Christian god to exist, all 3 persons of Him must exist. The disprovement of one means that the Christian god as a whole is disproven (if Jesus or the spirit existed but the father didn't or vice versa).

What evidence is there that the father exists or created the cosmos, earth, or Adam and Eve?

What evidence is there that the holy spirit constantly:

a) convice sinful people to do right
b) brings people to the Christian faith
c) inspires the writing of scriptures and helps other christians interpret these scriptures

What evidence is there that the holy spirit is also responsible for the birth, baptism, and empowerment of the son?

I urge my opponent to answer these questions.

I also urge a CON ballot.

Thank you.
pcmbrown

Pro

I am not arguing that Christianity follows logic. However, the resolution is true.

My argument is simple. Jesus Christ is revered by Christians as God in his entirety. He exists. Therefore, the Christian God exists.

It is not necessary to prove the existence of the entire trinity. Logically, the resolution is upheld. At any rate, you ought to have brought this up in an earlier round.

Thanks for the debate, thanks for reading, and vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
Charlie_Danger
pcm won this one with some nice debate tricks. I would expect that he does LD or Policy in real life.
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
RFD: Pro
ARGUMENT:
1. Pro proposes that 1) proof is factual evidence and 2) if Jesus existed Christian reverence for him would amount to their God existing, at least in some point of time. Admittedly, Con could have capitalized on the difference between existed and exists but he didn't, and it would have been mere semantics anyway as Pro's statements made it clear he was positing existence at some point in time and not presently.
2. Con concedes that Jesus = God for Christians, then counters that evidence proffered does not amount to proof because the accounts therein were not concurrent with Jesus' life. Also, he claims Jesus isn't omni-excellent.
3. Pro argues that Jesus doesn't need to be omni-excellent.
4. Con argues against the Christian God.
5. Pro ignores Con's argument.
Problem: Evidence can not be factual if it can not be presented as something that has or records actuality. Con argued that the accounts in the histories were inaccurate. Pro never bothered to counter the argument. What result?
6. Pro, barely. The histories themselves, at the very least, serve as evidence, and do exist as authentic, if perhaps inaccurate, records. Factual may be taken to mean authentic, rather than accurate. Therefore there is very weak proof of the existence of the Christian god at one point in time for the purposes of this debate.
Pro had better grammar and more sources as well.
Posted by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
Which is?
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
PRO could have won this debate very easily. He took a hard route instead. I've got my own idea on how PRO can't lose.
Posted by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
oh, good call, didnt think of that one
Posted by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
I think pro should've just argued that god exists as an idea or concept.
Posted by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
diety conceded Jesus' actuality.
Posted by Brock_Meyer 8 years ago
Brock_Meyer
Not that I'm a fan of where this debate went to from the outset, but I refer you to http://www.debate.org....

There is in fact no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed, even as a human person let alone a deity. Josephus lived after the lifetime of the alleged Jesus, and therefore cannot provide anything but hearsay.
Posted by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
Oooh, and I think this debate could feasibly be destroyed with semantics.
Posted by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
Also, I'm not convinced we're in a "sandbox." I tend to think those who are covered in sand are that way because of the means through which they process information.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by EmyG 8 years ago
EmyG
dietypcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by happypanda 8 years ago
happypanda
dietypcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
dietypcmbrownTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
dietypcmbrownTied
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 
Vote Placed by youngdebater 8 years ago
youngdebater
dietypcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
dietypcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Orangeman333 8 years ago
Orangeman333
dietypcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by slobodow 8 years ago
slobodow
dietypcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Larsness 8 years ago
Larsness
dietypcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
dietypcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07