The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Apophis66
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is there proof for a Living God?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 3/27/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,900 times Debate No: 111755
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (37)
Votes (0)

 

Pro

Definitely! I mean, you could argue about the Big Bang, and how people say life was created out of nothing, or how life was created from the Big Bang, or how some people say that God, actually, created the Big Bang, but that's not the point. The point is that there is proof of a God, and the God that there is most proof for is... God! The God of the Christians, Catholics, and to a very large extent the Mormons. It's something that's been debated about since a little after the time that people started to think for themselves - for Christians (I'm referring to Christians, and most of its inherent branches; Catholics, and Mormons), that would be about a thousand years after The Fall; for Atheists, it would be around the time the time that Religion started to come about, around 5,200 B.C.(E.). This is like the only reference to the Big Bang I'm gonna put, but it makes no sense to have Atheists claim that "something outta nothing" is impossible, then go and claim that the Big Bang started with something. But that's another debate entirely.

Anyway, my proof for God starts with, well, math.

Wait, what?

Yes, you heard me correctly. Math. As The Conversation puts it, "mathematics exists independent of physical reality". I'll go in-depth on that when the debate starts.

My second point is conscience. I mean, unless the people that are convinced that we're all a computer simulation are correct, well, then, there's no real explanation for it.

My third (and final) point is the Bible. Well, what did you expect? Anyway, those are my points.
Apophis66

Con

Math doesn't physically exist and is just a mental human concept that abstracts the way reality works. There is no real 1 + 1 = 2, this is just an abstraction to describe one element combined with another becoming two elements. Math is based on counting. 1 is 1 count, 2 is two counts, and 3 is those combined. Other operations like subtraction, division, and multiplication and be defined with counting.

What consciousness is and how it works is currently a mystery but that doesn't mean the supernatural is the explanation or God exists.

The bible is just a collection of historical records mixed in with mythological claims. Just because an ancient person made a claim in a book doesn't make it true.
Debate Round No. 1

Pro

You might have a point there; I didn't think of it that way. However, why does nature always follow the laws of math? That was a question posed by Nobel Prize winner and Princeton physicist Eugene Wigner. There is an order to this universe, and without order, there is chaos. I mean, theoretical physicists are working day and night to come up with an explanation of how this universe came into being. Roger Penrose, in 2004, put out a vision of three independently existing worlds - the Human Conscience, the material world, and mathematics. Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, was based on math created by Bernhard Riemann. There was no use for it then, but 50 years later, Einstein put out a theory that shocked the world. Newton couldn't explain gravity, but he had to end up saying it was the will of God (No, I'm not going to name a bunch of famous Christian scientists). Math like that isn't something that can just abstract reality, it has to be something that was created.

Conscience is something we're almost on the same page on, so I'm not going to argue the point.

Now, the Bible is a collection of historical records, as stated by you, but it's more than that. Legendary development is out of the question because there are thousands of hand-copied documents that were found, conceding with both the Old and New Testament. You're right, just because someone writes something in a book doesn't make it true. But when it has been read by many, many people, been confirmed by archaeological tests, and been debated about since the bible times, it just seems like it's more than just a bunch of idiots writing a book just to have some fun and see if they can convince some people, it's something that is true. That's my opinion, anyway. My question to you is if you believe that Jesus really existed, and if you think he rose from the dead.
Apophis66

Con

Why does the universe follow the rules of math? At a very basic level math is based on counting, and many things in the universe are too. For example we know 1 + 1 = 2 because we can count one unit and count another unit and make two units. If we apples by a tree that also follows counting. Or if we look at apples per tree that is just another example of many things in the universe being countable.

Another interesting consideration is that the universe doesn't fit all math and we have to adjust our mathematical equations to fit what reality is doing. For example if we measure the time an apple takes to drop if you simply count the time for each distance dropped, its not linear and easily countable, because the apple speeds up over time. We have to adjust our math formulas to account for that and fit reality.

Why is the universe ordered? Because everything has properties and these are quantifiable and countable and when different things interact they combine to form patterns. For example, gravity will pull matter together by a certain amount so we find that in Nebulae that gas will get pulled together to form stars which is ordered. Water and oil together will form distinct layers because they have different weights.

Lets move on to the bible. You say that because people hand-copied the bible proves that it didn't develop legends slowly. In order to demonstrate this you will need to show that each book was added to the bible immediately after their events. There may be a lot of copies of the bible but most of these copies are long after the events happened.

There are a lot of good archaeological findings confirming some of the places and events in the bible but this only proves that the writers lived during those times and knew what was going on and included them in the bible. There is no archaeological evidence of any supernatural claims. Mormon records of the early church also accurately account historical events in the US but their claims of Joseph Smith's miracles are still unproven. The Iliad accurately told of the fall of Troy but that doesn't mean their claims of Greek God involvement are true.

I am not 100% certain that Jesus existed because the only current records of him are the four gospels which are really biased sources that claim supernatural events. I am skeptical about whether a major religion could have started from a fictional character and many ordinary historical events are also based on very few records as well. Even if we assume Jesus existed there is no evidence to confirm any of the supernatural claims in the gospels. We have never seen people literally rise from the death or water turn into wine or devils possessing people and there is just no reason to take the word of ancient superstitious people who made these claims.
Debate Round No. 2

Pro

Don't want to appear like a know-it-all, but a couple of things-

1. Patterns = math
2. Quantifiable and countable = math

Just puttin' that out there.

Anyway, according to Wikipedia (don't worry, it's not my only source), most books were written from 20-50 years after Jesus's death and resurrection (I'll prove resurrection later on), which is too small a timeframe for legendary development. Just a small side note, the Apocryphian books started popping up around 100-200 years after Jesus's death, which, as most historians will tell you, is right when legendary development started happening. All of the books tell the same story, albeit from different viewpoints. Matthew talks about Jesus's birth and how King Herod tried to kill all the baby boys under two. Interesting reference to how the Pharoh tried to kill all the baby boys to make sure that there wouldn't be an Israeli uprising. Anyway, Mark was a smaller, more compact book, and from the University of Oregon's New Testament page, "Mark only included the hero"s words and deeds and death". This makes sense because different people focused on different things. There are enough inconsistencies to show that this wasn't something that people got together and planned, but there aren't enough inconsistencies to show that the Bible contradicts itself too much.

You are correct in saying that there are many stories that happened in the bible that were actually true. Supernatural events, however, have proof too. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah - recorded by an astrologer who saw "a meteor" land around the region. It's not certain whether or not this was written exactly when the bible says it happened, but the Bible can't be 100% accurate. If it's 95% accurate and above, which it is, then it can be trusted as a source. Ancients were very superstitious - but so are we. We aren't superstitious of much right now because we've seen a lot of things, and we know what happens in the world. But if we invent a new technology that cures cancer, then people would use it, sure, but become superstitious if it didn't work.

Jesus did exist, and that's a fact. He did make the claims that he was the Son of God, and he did raise up from the dead. Why? Becuase the Jews were seen as the "enemy" of the Christians at the time. They aren't now, obviously, but the Bible portrays them as enemies, and that MAKES SENSE. So when they buried Jesus, and after the three-day stuff happened, then when the Disciples claimed that Jesus rose from the dead, the Jews didn't say, "Raised from the dead? You can go check His tomb, it's on the corner of Bethany and Main, in Golgotha." No, they said that Jesus's body was moved by the disciples. I hope you know your Roman history, because two Roman soldiers were guarding the Tomb day and night, and other soldiers checked on them. Now, Roman soldiers were among the toughest, if not the toughest soldiers were have today. To suggest that the Disciples had moved the body was like saying a ragtag group of teenagers escaped Alcatraz (back then, obviously), robbed Fort Knox, and single-handedly overthrew the U.S. Government. Well, maybe not the U.S. government, but it shows that this would've been impossible.
Apophis66

Con

most books were written from 20-50 years after Jesus's death and resurrection, which is too small a timeframe for legendary development

I agree that the Gospels were written too soon after Jesus to have gradually collected myths over long time periods like hundreds of years but myths can pop up overnight. The authors could have been lying or not even eye witnesses and only heard exaggerated accounts from other people or they inserted somewhat exaggerated accounts from tricked eyewitnesses because of their religious beliefs. If you have ever lived in a small town then you would know how easy it is for rumors and gossip to spring overnight. We have numerous books claiming UFOs, Bigfoot sightings, and psychic abilities.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and if I claimed that I saw a cat in my yard then you will probably take my word for it but if I made the more extraordinary claim that I saw a UFO you would ask for a lot of evidence. The same is true for the gospels. Just because somebody writes a book claiming the supernatural doesn't mean we just believe them.

There are enough inconsistencies to show that this wasn't something that people got together and planned, but there aren't enough inconsistencies to show that the Bible contradicts itself too much.

Don't you think that if people got together they would be smart enough not to completely duplicate each other? Also, its harder than you think to prove inconsistencies because those books often talk about completely different events and are small enough to not be too detailed. Any inconsistency could just be explained that those two things happened at different times. For example, the gospels give extremely different accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb which is the central claim of Christianity by the way. Christians explain these differences by creating a Frankenstein story from all these accounts that is absolutely ridiculous with all these different groups of women and disciples are constantly running around the tomb area and meeting many sets of angels repeating themselves.

Supernatural events, however, have proof too. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah - recorded by an astrologer who saw "a meteor" land around the region.

A meteor hitting a city isn't supernatural. Remember when hurricane Katrina happened and people blamed the gays? A similar thing could have happened with Sodom and Gomorrah.

So when they buried Jesus, and after the three-day stuff happened, then when the Disciples claimed that Jesus rose from the dead, the Jews didn't say, "Raised from the dead? You can go check His tomb, it's on the corner of Bethany and Main, in Golgotha." No, they said that Jesus's body was moved by the disciples. I hope you know your Roman history, because two Roman soldiers were guarding the Tomb day and night, and other soldiers checked on them.

Well what if the disciples stole the body? And the only accounts of the reaction of the Jews are from the gospels themselves so how can you trust them? Suspiciously enough there are no other records of the reactions or arguments of Jews at that time and that seems strange given how angry they were about Jesus. Also, I recall that when Jesus died all the dead people were raised from their graves and it was night for three days. Well no historical records of that either. Nobody in the world bothered to mention a zombie super-night.

So how did they get through the guards? maybe they bribed the guards. Maybe a bunch of them took down the guards. The only claim that there were guards were from the books themselves so maybe there were no guards to begin with. How do we even know that Jesus was in a tomb and this whole thing wasn't added in later. You are using the claims made by the gospels to back up other claims in them which is circular reasoning. Its like using unproven claims in a suspect's testimony to prove he is innocent.
Debate Round No. 3

Pro

*Also, I recall that when Jesus died all the dead people were raised from their graves and it was night for three days.*

Sorry, that's when he comes **again**, not when he rose up the first time. I can see where you'd be confused, though, Revelation isn't known for being clear. I wasn't clear, either, when I said that the Jews gave the "stolen body" hypotheses.

This is from CatholicPhilly.com -

"That "stolen body hypothesis" never caught on " first of all, because the dispirited band of Jesus" followers, whose dream had seemingly died with their master, were then huddled together in fear and unlikely to risk going anywhere near the tomb of Christ.

The resurrection of Jesus was destined to cause enduring problems for Roman and Jewish leaders, and it would have been worth their every effort should they have been able to disprove it. (Imagine the effect of being able to produce the body of Christ and parade the "stolen" corpse through the streets of Jerusalem.) But any investigation on the part of civil and religious authorities came up empty."

It is well documented the Jesus suffered and died. There is evidence that the Disciples claimed that Jesus rose again. There is no evidence, however, that the Romans and Jews quickly put down any claims that Jesus rose again.

There had to be guards - the Jews knew that Jesus or whomever the Messiah was, would raise from the dead. So they made sure to station guards outside the tomb, to make sure that the disciples didn't claim he rose again. As for bribery, well...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

that should cover it.

A bunch of them taking down the guards wouldn't make sense because they were huddled in a house praying. It even says it in the Bible. Think about it- if they had, then they would have said something along the lines of, "And the Spirit of God came upon us and we overpowered the Roman Soldiers to see if the Lord had Risen Again - and lo and behold, we found that he was not in the tomb". They would have been convicted because of their crimes. Remember, the guards were checked on, so they would have been easily found out. The guards would have yelled before they attacked the ambushers, drawing attention to themselves. You are correct in calling it (or what you gained from it, anyway) circular reasoning.

I know that a meteor hitting a city is natural. But why not just say something like, and excuse my bad Old English, "And the Lord hast cast his fury down on Sodom and Gomorrah, forever destroying the cities that sinned so", rather than spinning some yarn or other about Abraham and Lot and how he chose this land and Yakety Yakety... you see what I mean?

If the gospels weren't true and were just made up, then why give any inconsistencies about the most important thing in the whole book ... or books ... or whatever. You're right about how we don't just believe anything that the world throws at us, however, scholars have, time and time again, put the gospels under scrutiny and come up with... well, Jesus existed, Jesus was baptized, and Jesus died on the Cross. The rest of the scholars, however, are not as... convinced about the rest of the Gospels. Makes sense, because if they said that the Gospels never happened, then there would be an uprising. If they said that the Gospels did actually happen...

then there would be an uprising.
Apophis66

Con

Matthew 27:
50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split
52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus" resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Yup, the dead rose when Jesus died and nobody else bothered to report this or the three day night. Unlikely.

the dispirited band of Jesus" followers, whose dream had seemingly died with their master, were then huddled together in fear and unlikely to risk going anywhere near the tomb of Christ.

A bunch of them taking down the guards wouldn't make sense because they were huddled in a house praying.


Based on what evidence do we know that every single Christian was too scared to go to the tomb? Is this from the very same gospels written by Jesus's inner circle? The Jews at the time were very rebellious and attacking Romans isn't a crazy idea.

Think about it- if they had, then they would have said something along the lines of, "And the Spirit of God came upon us and we overpowered the Roman Soldiers to see if the Lord had Risen Again - and lo and behold, we found that he was not in the tomb". They would have been convicted because of their crimes. Remember, the guards were checked on, so they would have been easily found out. The guards would have yelled before they attacked the ambushers, drawing attention to themselves.

The disciples beating up a bunch of guards certainly isn't very Christ-like and they would have admitted breaking the law and fowl play. The explanation that an angel did it is a whole lot more dignified and more fitting of such a holy event. Even if the Romans yelled how do you know there was anyone else around to hear a couple of yells? They would have only been convicted if they were caught or identified. If the Romans would have gone after them then why didn't the Romans unbelievers accuse them the minute the body was found missing?

But any investigation on the part of civil and religious authorities came up empty."

We literally have no contemporary records that Jesus even existed other than the gospels. How do you know there were investigations or that they came up short? Most criminal investigations today come up short too.

It is well documented the Jesus suffered and died. There is evidence that the Disciples claimed that Jesus rose again. There is no evidence, however, that the Romans and Jews quickly put down any claims that Jesus rose again.

The only contemporary documentation is from the gospels themselves which are trying to claim that Jesus has magical powers so you are trying to prove the gospels claims of the supernatural with other claims made by the gospels. From the gospels there was a lot of dissent against Jesus and hatred against the Jews yet we can't find a record of those Jews making arguments against Jesus. Suspicious.

There had to be guards - the Jews knew that Jesus or whomever the Messiah was, would raise from the dead. So they made sure to station guards outside the tomb, to make sure that the disciples didn't claim he rose again. As for bribery, well...

Have you considered that maybe the raising from the dead stuff was only claimed after the disciples stole the body so nobody bothered to guard the tomb? Or maybe the whole thing was added in later. Or maybe the disciples figured a way around the guards?

Sure people get punished for bribery, but that doesn't keep it from happening. Rome has also famous for its bribery and corruption as you can see in the link below.
https://www.historytoday.com...

Sodom and Gomorrah

All we know is that an Asteroid hit the Sumerian region at one time. We don't even have any evidence the cities destroyed were Sodom and Gomorrah or that this was caused by God and just just horrible bad luck. There were a lot of evil cities back then and human sacrifice, slavery, rape, war, and genocide were common and it is no surprise that a couple bad cities got hit because asteroids happen.

If the gospels weren't true and were just made up, then why give any inconsistencies about the most important thing in the whole book ... or books ... or whatever.

Maybe these books were written separately over 50 years and a few myths added to each and so a few inconsistencies popped up during that time. Maybe we had real accounts from apostles who were tricked or exaggerated and later writers added more supernatural stuff in because of their specific religious beliefs or out of dishonesty.

You're right about how we don't just believe anything that the world throws at us, however, scholars have, time and time again, put the gospels under scrutiny and come up with... well, Jesus existed, Jesus was baptized, and Jesus died on the Cross.

These scholars are biblical scholars. Guess what types of people decide to become biblical scholars? Christians. No wonder they believe the bible.

We can speculate all we want about what could have been true or not true about the gospels but the reality remains is that there are literally no other contemporary records of Jesus and the only records we have are from his inner circle and claims he has magical powers. People lie all the time and the Mormon scriptures and supernatural claims were also made from lies too. We also have numerous non-cannon bible books like the book of Judas, book of Eden, and book of Mary which teach some strange stuff which Christians believe is fake so we know people make stuff up all the time.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and a book claiming the supernatural can't just confirm itself without any outside evidence. Maybe Christianity was never supposed to be about evidence and the point is to have faith and to just believe. If there was evidence there would be no need for faith. So I don't believe there is proof Jesus is God but Christians choose to have faith like like other religions choose to have faith too.
Debate Round No. 4

Pro

"52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus" resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

Now, that could be interpreted in many ways. God said that only one person rose from the dead - this could be just spirits that appeared to people. It's unclear, so I'm not going to argue that point much.

"Based on what evidence do we know that every single Christian was too scared to go to the tomb? Is this from the very same gospels written by Jesus's inner circle? The Jews at the time were very rebellious and attacking Romans isn't a crazy idea."

The same Romans who they were working with and had a safeguard from?

" Even if the Romans yelled how do you know there was anyone else around to hear a couple of yells?"

Actually, it was the Sabbath. People didn't work, so they would visit things. Like family members' tombs, for instance. Not saying that would actually happen, but it's very possible.

"Non-Christian sources which are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources, such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels, and are usually independent of each other; for example, the Jewish sources do not draw upon the Roman sources. Similarities and differences between these sources are used in the authentication process."
- from Wikipedia, with many, many hyperlinks after it.

"Have you considered that maybe the raising from the dead stuff was only claimed after the disciples stole the body so nobody bothered to guard the tomb?"

Well, for centuries upon centuries prophets have predicted the coming Messiah. They said that he would raise from the dead. This isn't something that the Disciples would have invented. I don't have much time, sorry, but there is evidence (and a lot of it) that shows that the Jews predicted that the Messiah would rise from the dead - and they also predicted many of the miracles he performed.

"Maybe these books were written separately over 50 years and a few myths added to each and so a few inconsistencies popped up during that time. Maybe we had real accounts from apostles who were tricked or exaggerated and later writers added more supernatural stuff in because of their specific religious beliefs or out of dishonesty.?

Too many inconsistencies to show collaboration, not enough to show that he didn't exist. You forget, there are texts that show that there aren't enough inconsistencies between 500 years are minimal - and they run from A.D. 50.

"These scholars are biblical scholars. Guess what types of people decide to become biblical scholars? Christians. No wonder they believe the bible."

No. They're mostly Atheist. You think that Atheists wouldn't file a complaint about a research group's findings that's so integral to their entire point?

"So I don't believe there is proof Jesus is God but Christians choose to have faith like like other religions choose to have faith too."

Well, sir, I must say that's personal preference. I have to agree, though, that there isn't that much proof for Jesus - other than that he existed and that he was crucified.
Apophis66

Con

Now, that could be interpreted in many ways. God said that only one person rose from the dead - this could be just spirits that appeared to people. It's unclear, so I'm not going to argue that point much.

No, the bible didn't say spirits appeared to people privately. It said that the tombs broke open and the bodies of the dead were raised back to life. And they came out of their tombs and walked into the city and appeared to many people.

The same Romans who they were working with and had a safeguard from?

Actually the Jews had to threaten violence to get the Romans to do what they wanted so they weren't friends. A little later the Jews revolted against the Romans and the Temple was burned down. They weren't friends.

Actually, it was the Sabbath. People didn't work, so they would visit things. Like family members' tombs, for instance. Not saying that would actually happen, but it's very possible.

But you just said that there were armed guards at the tomb and people were scared. Also, isn't it possible that the body was moved at night when nobody was visiting?

Non-Christian sources which are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus and Roman sources such as Tacitus.

Those sources are actually later than the gospels and are just basing their records on what the gospels and Christians claimed. What I am looking for are records at the time that independently back up the account from the gospels.

Well, for centuries upon centuries prophets have predicted the coming Messiah. They said that he would raise from the dead. This isn't something that the Disciples would have invented. I don't have much time, sorry, but there is evidence (and a lot of it) that shows that the Jews predicted that the Messiah would rise from the dead - and they also predicted many of the miracles he performed.

What if the original Jesus didn't claim to be the Messiah and that was only tacked on later? What if he did claim that then he died like all the other supposed Messiahs so they tacked on that story or moved the body?

No. They're mostly Atheist. You think that Atheists wouldn't file a complaint about a research group's findings that's so integral to their entire point?

Really? The majority of people who decided to study the history or early Christianity are atheists? 70% of the population is Christian and only 3% are atheist and atheists are far more enthused to learn about Christianity than actual Christian? Doesn't sound right to me. In reality this field is dominated by theology majors and Christians who want a more spiritual-oriented career. A lot of less biased researchers do question the gospels and bring up points like Luke and Matthew were copied from Mark, Jesus may not have existed, and that they were not written by eye witnesses. Below is a link to the opinions of dissenting researchers.
https://thebestschools.org...

Too many inconsistencies to show collaboration, not enough to show that he didn't exist. You forget, there are texts that show that there aren't enough inconsistencies between 500 years are minimal - and they run from A.D. 50.

As I mentioned before the books individually are quite small and don't go into a lot of detail and often talk about different events and inconsistencies are often explained by reinterpreting or saying the events happened at different times. When I brought up the bodies were raised from the dead and nobody reported you just claimed that it is was just spirits appearing and you still haven't explained how a three day night globally has no records at all in a time when people were obsessed with the stars. I also brought up that the gospels have very different accounts about the finding of the empty tomb which is a major inconsistency because thats the central claim of the gospels.

Here are the events according to each book:
Matthew:
Two Marys go to the tomb and there is a big earthquake and an angel comes down and rolls back the stone in front of the tomb and the guards fainted. The angel tells the women Jesus has risen and not to be afraid and to tell the disciples. The women go to tell the apostles but Jesus meets them and they continue to tell the apostles.

Mark:
The Marys and Salome when walking to the tomb to put spices on the body ask who is going to roll the stone for us. But they find that the stone has already been removed and when they enter the tomb they find an angel who says Jesus has risen and not to be afraid and to tell the apostles especially Peter. The women fled with terror and didn't tell anyone. The later part: Mark 16:9-end was found to be fraudulent and was added in later by someone because it wasn't in the earliest versions of the book. So much for trustworthiness.

Luke:
The Marys and Joanna go to the tomb and find the stone rolled away and that the body is missing. Suddenly two angels appear and tell them the body is missing and the reason why. The women tell the apostles but they don't believe the women. Peter runs to the tomb and finds nothing. Jesus later meets the apostles.

John:
Mary goes to the tomb and finds it empty. She runs to Peter and tell him that someone has stolen Jesus and she doesn't know where he has been moved to. Peter and other disciples run to the tomb but find nothing. Mary remains outside the Romb crying when two angels appear and ask her why she is crying. She answers and when she turns around she sees Jesus. he tells her he is risen and to go tell the disciples. She runs and tells them. Jesus later appears to the disciples.

In addition to the massive contradictions a lot of your statements backing up what was happening at the time when Jesus rose comes from the same chapters that give these conflicting accounts by the way.

Well, sir, I must say that's personal preference. I have to agree, though, that there isn't that much proof for Jesus - other than that he existed and that he was crucified.

So you have admitted that there isn't much proof for the supernatural claims. This is a nice way to wrap up this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
"The only thing you actually know is that god is a dream..You know absolutly nothing else then that..."
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
I certainly haven't dreamt about God. How is he a dream?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
The only thing you actually know is that god is a dream..You know absolutly nothing else then that...
Posted by gkim 3 years ago
gkim
pfttt I think you need to wake up from your "dreams" stop dreaming boy.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
"Stop dreaming about your god, and see what is left..I garantie you there will be absolutly nothing.."
Try it out and you will know I am right. ...I know it is hard learning/waking up. And you will feel lost in the beginning.
Posted by gkim 3 years ago
gkim
Stop dreaming that you're right with no proof. You sound very immature just talking about dreams.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Stop dreaming about your god, and see what is left..I garantie you there will be absolutly nothing.."
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
You would debate my "dreams" because there is no proof that my "dreams" are "dreams".
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Why would I debate your dreams. If you are dreaming of pink elephants...what can I say to that ?
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Well, I can "garantie" that if you stop "dreaming", nothing is left. Since this isn't the debate, and my word said that I wouldn't talk about the Big Bang any more during the debate, well, I'm about to go off on a tangent.

You've been saying "dream", "dream", "dream", and you have no proof for it. Where did the Universe come from, eh? Where did all of the things in the world come from, eh? Tell me. Tell me, and I can prove you wrong no matter what you say. I've challenged you to a debate, so be a man/woman/whatever and accept it, for crying out loud!
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.