The Instigator
Chuckles1234
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

There's no reason to believe that the God of Abraham exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 526 times Debate No: 61409
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

Chuckles1234

Pro

In the case of the God of Abraham, the only reason anyone would believe he exists is because of the Bible, which is a dubiously historically accurate book of myths and folklore. Natural revelation (God's revelation through nature) is making a connection that isn't there. Spiritual tradition only continues because childhood indoctrination is so easy to accomplish, but so hard to overcome.
1Credo

Con

1. Acceptance

I accept. Thank you for creating this debate, Pro.

2. Definition of God

In this discussion, I will be defending God of Abraham as revealed through Christianity. I will put forth a definition for the God I will be defending, as one has not been submitted by Pro.

God: A maximally great being.

3. Burden of Proof

Pro has asserted that "There's no reason to believe that the God of Abraham exists." It follows from this assertion that Pro will be responsible for carrying the burden of proof in this debate. Pro must demonstrate that there is not a single reason to think that the God of Abraham, revealed through Christianity, exists. I will await Pro's arguments and address them in the following round.

4. Arguments in Favor of God's Existence

I will list and very briefly describe five arguments in favor of the existence of God. Further response will be given after Pro's objections have been made, if Pro makes any. In order to reject the conclusion of these arguments, Pro must knock down at least one premise in each of the five arguments presented. If Pro fails to knock down each of the five arguments, then we have at least one good reason to believe that God exists.

God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2) The universe began to exist.
C1) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Something cannot come from nothing. The universe came into existence between 13-14 billion years ago in an event known as the "Big Bang" [1]. I would like Pro to give his/her thoughts on what caused the big bang.

God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.
P1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
C1) Therefore, God exists.

In order to believe that actions such as rape and murder are objectively wrong, one must affirm objective morality. But objective moral laws cannot exist without an objective moral law-giver. I would like Pro to give his/her thoughts on whether he/she affirms objective morality.

God is the best explanation for why there is anything at all rather than nothing.
P1) Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or due to an external cause.
P2) If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God.
P3) The universe exists.
C1) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from P1, P3)
C2) Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from P2, C1)

I think it is fairly self-evident that the universe is not necessary by its own nature. If Pro disagrees with this, I will provide further comments. If the universe is not necessary, then what is the explanation for its existence? I would like Pro to give his/her thoughts on why anything at all exists rather than nothing.

The very possibility of God implies His actuality.
P1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C1) Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

It follows from P1 that is the concept of a maximally great being (God) is even possible, His actuality is implied. I would like Pro to give his/her thoughts on whether or not it is possible (as opposed to incoherent) that God should exist.

God is the best explanation for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
P1) If Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected, then God exists.
P2) Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected.
C1) Therefore, God exists.

The facts surrounding the death, burial, and post-mortem appearances of Jesus of Nazareth point to the most probable conclusion being that He was resurrected from the dead. I would like Pro to give his/her thoughts on whether or not Jesus of Nazareth existed, was crucified, was buried, and was seen post-mortem by others.

I await Pro's response.

5. The God of Abraham

I think it is important to note that there is a reason to think that a God (a maximally great being) exists, this is reason to think that the God of Abraham exists. The God of Abraham represents the world's three great monotheisms: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. From the arguments given above, we can derive certain properties of God. For example, the first argument gives us a God that is transcendent (exists outside of space and time,) eternal, and powerful in order that He creates the universe (including space and time themselves.) The second argument gives us a God that is perfectly good in order that He be the ultimate standard for objective morality. The fifth argument gives us a God that is all-loving, in order that He sacrifice himself in place of humanity.

We can also gather properties of God by considering the definition, a maximally great being. God must be maximal in all beneficial properties, otherwise it would be conceivable that there would be an even greater being than He, which in turn would by definition be God.

These properties point in particular to the monotheistic God of Abraham. Polytheistic conceptions of God do not represent a maximally great being and therefore cannot be considered God by the definition given. We can then conclude that if there is a reason to think that God exists, there is a reason to think that the God of Abraham exists.

6. Summary

Pro has taken it upon him/herself to carry the burden of proof in this debate by attempting to justify the claim that "There's no reason to believe that the God of Abraham exists." Pro must put forward some sort of warrant for this claim, otherwise it seems that he has failed to carry the burden of proof. I have put forward five arguments of my own in attempt to show that there is at least one reason to believe that God, in particular the God of Abraham, exists. Pro must tear down each of the five arguments I have presented, and in their place put forward his/her own arguments if Pro wants us to accept the claim that there is not a single reason to think that the God of Abraham exists.



Sources:
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu...

Debate Round No. 1
Chuckles1234

Pro

Chuckles1234 forfeited this round.
1Credo

Con

I have nothing to add to what I said in the last round, as Pro did not respond.
Debate Round No. 2
Chuckles1234

Pro

Chuckles1234 forfeited this round.
1Credo

Con

Again, I have nothing to add. Pro has forfeited 2/3 rounds of this debate and has failed to carry his/her share of the burden of proof.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
And I see a continuity in the bible from geneses to revelations. It just flows throughout history. From Adam's fall, to God telling satan that he would send Messiah, to Jesus coming to fulfill that and many more prophecies.Have you ever seen any books about any subject that has the kind of continuity that the bible has. And that being written over 1500 years by 40 authors.You can't even get math teachers to agree. Why come up with new math.And you have some jugheads from your side of the aisle that says 2+2 may not = 4. But when you get out into the real world it always comes up 4.
Abraham, to modern day Israel is fulfilling of foretold events. And only a being outside of our reality can see that.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Of course you cannot prove the bibles accounts in history are inaccurate.Like myself, I came to God later in life, not as a child.I had drifted away from my childhood roots, catholicism, because when you get out into the real world, it does not work. But once I started reading and living the bible all of it makes sense. And 40 years later I have not seen any thing in human behavior that refutes anything the bible says.Or in science. The holy grail of atheism, evolution , never comes near how life began. Just its claims of life's movements after the fact.
All you wizards of smart atheists if you were to just make one living cell out of non-living matter, then your credibility to free thinkers would skyrocket.But with total confidence, you never will.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Chuckles12341CredoTied
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 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: forfeit Con had most reliable sources, and made best argument.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Chuckles12341CredoTied
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 Checkmark1 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: FF. Advice to Credo1, you need to actually support your premises, otherwise the syllogisms just become nice-looking bare assertions.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Chuckles12341CredoTied
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: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by andymcstab 2 years ago
andymcstab
Chuckles12341CredoTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeited