The Instigator
DRmagus101
Pro (for)
The Contender
FreshMeat12
Con (against)

can you disprove Christianity with facts?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
DRmagus101 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/6/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 102919
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

DRmagus101

Pro

To prove Christianity false you must first know what it is. To me, I will be using its definition as defined in the King James Version.

In my time I have come across these 3 main issues that people have and thus explain pre-emptively how they only prove I`m right

Q1. if god is true, why not there be gods?

Answer- In truth Christianity does not say there is only one god , rather that there is many gods , but one ruler of gods who also is a god.

Q2. where is proof the ruler of gods exist?

Answer- The bible. However most people that ask that question really meant to ask " how can I know that a ruler of gods exist?" Well. . . First off we don`t *know* anything. I believe one philosopher put it "The only thing we can know is the fact of our own ignorance" and in truth we can`t even know that.

This is because 'to know' is to be certain. And the only thing certain is uncertainty. let me give you an analogy to clarify as I`m having trouble putting this into words without sounding like its circular reasoning...

You say 'The grass is green because I can see it so I know it is certain' while another may say that the grass is in-fact gray because they can see it thus it must be true'

who is right? neither. the grass appears differently because one see`s in color and the other does not have the genetics to do so. although grass is in-fact not gray nor green. this is because we do not see the object rather we see light being reflected off of objects or the absent of light.

okay one more example then last point.

For example, a man teaches his son to ride a bike. he says this IS* good. then the son falls off bike breaks leg. the man then says it was/(is*) evil to teach his son to ride. the next day the army calls and there is a draft: since his son broke his leg he will not be going to war where he could die thus the man now says that teaching him to ride was good. The simple point is, we can not know* anything till there is no more future to change what we know. once then we can rationalize and scientifically analyze everything after all the facts are given. this goes down to basic algebra where if u only have 1 of 3 parts to a problem that the problem is unsolvable.

Q3. if there is a ruler of gods who is a god, why the evil and suffering? or better put: what is the purpose of it all?

Answer- Part 1: look at supply and demand. when it comes to a price, things with high supply low demand are cheap. while things with low supply high demand are extremely valued in a high price. Therefore if happiness is in short supply and high demand then it is valued. while if suffering is in high supply low demand it is of lower value. therefore if the creator aka ruler of the gods designed existence so that happiness is valued and suffering less valued then logically the creator values happiness more then suffering and thus the suffering is only there to add value to not suffering.

Part 2. purpose is relative to the viewer. same as good and evil are relative to the viewer and time is relative to the viewer. that is to say your purpose is that which you give it. and the creators purpose was for you to give yourself a purpose even if that purpose is to not have a purpose. now then you might ask well what is the meaning of life? the fact is there is not one meaning but many for example your exp.`s is a meaning. your choices is a meaning. Ect. just to give you an example lets take good and evil.

what I define as good may be what you define as evil. ( say sky jumping may be fun for one person who is an Adrenalin addict but to someone afraid of height`s its torture)
good and evil are terms that show contrast. one thing may be better or worse then another. and that better thing or worse thing also might be better or worse then another thing. for example lets take math. how many times can you divide something in half? answer? infinite. so asking what is the purpose is like asking if you count up by 1 where does it stop? well it does not stop. it is an illusion of a question. you think your asking "how many 1`s does it take to reach 10?" when in fact your asking how many times can I add one?

So now stating some brief points to how Christianity may be true I offer a challenge to anyone who can disprove Christianity as defined in King James Version bible. pick any points you want in said bible or simply add your own point or if you want you can use what I stated here as something to disprove.

this post is a 5 round debate. selective winner. voting will be a week long and time in between replies is 24 hours aka one day. I look forward to anyone willing to debate me...
FreshMeat12

Con

Firstly, I'd like to know what my opponent means by "God". To have multiple omnipotent beings will lead to a contradiction, as one will can contradict the other. It's similar to having a sword that can pierce all go against a shield that cannot be pierced.

I believe that gratuitous evil does show that God doesn't exist. "Evil" might not be the right term, so I will use the term suffering. God is supposed to be just, so causing gratuitous suffering is an unjust punishment. The Christian might respond with the original sin argument, but this doesn't account for the suffering of animals.

This argument can be put in the form of a logical syllogism. It can be presented as follows.

Premise one: If there is gratuitous suffering, then God doesn't exist.
Premise two: There is gratuitous suffering.
Conclusion: Therefore, God doesn't exist.

The argument is logically valid, which means that to reject the conclusion means you will have to reject one of the premises.

To reject premise one is to say that God is not just, and I wouldn't think a Christian would take that position.

To reject premise two, my opponent will have to justify not only the suffering of people, but the suffering of animals who didn't do anything wrong.

I noticed my opponent tried to justify suffering by saying it means we will value happiness more. Firstly, wouldn't this mean heaven won't be as happy because we won't value happiness? Secondly, why would God have to use suffering? This seems to be placing some type of restriction on God's power.

Another thing that can demonstrate that God doesn't exist is that the theory of evolution is inconsistent with God and the Bible.

Premise 1: If the theory of evolution is true, God doesn't exist.
Premise 2: The theory of evolution is true.
Conclusion: Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Evolution can be shown to be inconsistent with the Bible by simply looking at the first few verses of the Bible. Furthermore, the genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:23-28) traces Jesus back to Adam, and says Adam is the son of God. This would be inconsistent with the fossil record, which shows that humans descended from apes. For instance, homo Erectus was one of these transitional forms. Rationalwiki has a list of many of these transitional forms. See http://rationalwiki.org... .

The theory of evolution is shown through multiple lines of evidence. The clearest example of this is the vestigial traits we humans have.

For instance, goosebumps are pretty much useless now, but when we were hairy apes, goosebumps would make our hair stick out more, making us look bigger and more formidable. Some people also have a vestigial trait where they can wiggle their ears. This is useless to us, but if we look at monkeys or even other animals like dogs, we can see that they use it to try to see where a sound is coming from. Some people also have a vestigial muscle called the palmeris longus on their arm. This isn't useful at all to us now, but it would make sense that some of us still have it, because a lot of apes do use it.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Mr Dearly said what I was going to. The only thing I would add is that you seem to be rambling on with your examples.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Christianity is based in belief not facts. You do not use or need knowledge, proof or evidence for gods.
The only thing needed for gods is belief. I have never seen evidence for a supernatural being of any kind, let alone an invisible one.
Posted by MrDelaney 1 year ago
MrDelaney
Interesting topic, but to be honest this is a little bit of a mess. You state that you must first know what Christianity is but do not define it. You then refer to the definition from the KJV, but do not state what that is (I"m not aware of any concise definition of 'Christianity' in the KJV).

Also, this entire debate is a shifting of the burden of proof - asking someone to disprove the claim (insinuating that an inability to disprove somehow offers proof for it).

Lastly, it seems that you've taken the PRO side of the debate when your topic is 'Can you Disprove Christianity with Facts,' yet your initial post sounds as if you want to argue the CON position. If the topic is 'Can you Disprove Christianity with Facts' then the PRO position would argue for that (meaning you CAN disprove Christianity with facts), the CON position would argue against it (meaning you CANNOT disprove Christianity with facts).

I would suggest giving some thought as to what you want to debate, consider the burden of proof and then start a new debate with a clearer focus and defined terms.

Just my two cents.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.