The Instigator
Stabsdagoblin
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Percivil
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The Christian God is real

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 116065
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Stabsdagoblin

Con

The win conditions are as follows
Pro wins if they can prove that any version of the christian god is real. It need not be a specific denominations god.
Con wins if pro fails to prove the claim of a christian god.
The definitions for the christian god is as follows
Christian God-an omniscient being that is described by the bible.
The opposing side may get first argument.
Percivil

Pro

First argument:
In the 8th century,during a mass,the bread and wine turned into actual flesh and blood. Years later,scientists investigated the miracle and came to the following conclusions:
1.The Flesh is striated muscular tissue of the myocardium (heart wall), having no trace whatsoever of any agents used for preservation.

2.The Blood and the Flesh were found to belong to the rare blood type AB.

3.The Blood of the Eucharistic miracle was found to contain the following minerals: chloride, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium, all normal components of blood. The protein components were normally fractionated with the same percentage ratio as those found in normal fresh blood.

4.All the scientists agreed that the Flesh and Blood would have rapidly decayed without effective preservatives.

Professor Linoli, famous for anatomical studies, conclusively excluded the possibility of a fraud, affirming that no human hand could have made such an expert cut from the Heart, which was made tangentially, that is, a round cut, thick on the outer edges and lessening gradually and uniformly into the empty central area.

Source:http://www.traditioninaction.org.........

Oh and a little bit more about the miracle of lanciano,when scientists cut the piece of flesh,each piece was 15.85 grams. How is this special? Take a look:
Original piece:15.85 grams
Each cut piece:15.85 grams
Source:https://www.michaeljournal.org.........

If god does not exist, then how could this miracle have occured? Is it plausible to say that this can be explained by science when there is no scientific explanation for this? I"m open for explanations but the last I checked there was not a single explanation for this miracle. And if you"re wondering why there isnt an explanation for this(or at least one I could not find) from science,the definition of a miracle is an event which is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws and hence attributed to divine agency.
Debate Round No. 1
Stabsdagoblin

Con

To start off the two sources you linked do not take me to anything mentioning the story you claimed happened. You will need to fix that. So already you have failed to provide any evidence. Also im rather curious how did they determine blood type in the 8th century? After all blood types were discovered in the 20th century.
The next point im going to make is that you ignored the definition we were supposed to use for this debate. That there is an omniscient being and that it is the one described in the bible. You have provided no reason to believe this supposed event happened and even if it did that it required omniscience nor even that it was the christian god that did it. How do you know it was not Zeus, Allah, or the Jewish god? If all you have is this one supposed miracle i'm afraid this debate will not go far.
Percivil

Pro

Argument two:
Now con at this moment right now might think the bible is a fictional book but in this argument I"d like to take a look at the historical evidence behind bibical events:

Noah"s ark:https://www.google.com.sg...

Jesus"s tomb:https://www.google.com.sg...

Burial cloth/shroud of turin:https://www.google.com.sg...

Rebuttals:
"Also im rather curious how did they determine blood type in the 8th century? After all blood types were discovered in the 20th century." Recorded into the history books in the 8th century and investigated in the 20th century.

Apologies you couldnt get the link:
https://www.catholiceducation.org...

https://www.michaeljournal.org...

Sorry I may have used different links as I couldnt find the ones I found earlier.
Debate Round No. 2
Stabsdagoblin

Con

My opponents proof for Noah's ark was a link to some pictures of an unusual dirt pattern on a mountain. That is it. That does not proof that it was Noah's ark (assuming the pattern is the result of an ark). My opponents next claim was about Jesus's tomb. In the very same article he linked it said that it was impossible to confirm it was the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. So his own source works against him. My opponent then cited the shroud of Turin. All the link he provided said was that the shroud was likely worn by a person who had experienced repeated torture. No where does it provide evidence that would say that torture victim was Jesus.
He responded to my rebuttal by saying "Recorded into the history books in the 8th century and investigated in the 20th century." How did they record into the history books a blood type that was not yet discovered? It makes no sense.

My opponent appears to be hinging his entire argument on proving a few stories about the bible true to try and say the whole thing is true. This is quite simply not how logic works. Even if a few events in the bible did occur that does not mean they occurred how they were said to occur in the bible nor does it confirm the christian god true. My opponent has provided no reason to believe in an omniscient god nor that if there is one that its the christian god.
But since my opponent is so determined to argue the validity of various stories in the bible i will counter despite those stories not being completely relevant to the debate.
Noah's ark. Not only was the ark not large enough to fit 2 of every kind of "unclean" animal on the planet. Much less 7 of all the clean animals. In addition there was no where near enough room to fit all the food required to feed all these animals. In addition the animals could not have all reached Noah as quickly as the bible purports they did. This is obvious when you considered all the land based animals unique to places like Madagascar. There is of course the problem of a lack of genetic diversity that all the animals would suffer from after they had to inbreed to try and recover from there only being 2 or 7 of their kind left. This would result in the various races of animals all dying out. Furthermore the mixing of all the salt water on earth with the fresh water would result in all fresh water fish dying out and going extinct.
Source-https://ncse.com...
I'm going to list a few contradictions in the bible to show its unreliability
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.
These are just the ones in genesis i think i have made my point. For the record i found this list of contradictions on this website and it contains around 100 more of these contradictions.
Source-https://infidels.org...
Percivil

Pro

Last argument:
Since Im limited to only using the bible, here are a few links to confirm it:
Archeology confirms new testament:https://www.premierchristianity.com...

History confirming bible:https://amazingbibletimeline.com...

Science confirming the bible:https://rationalwiki.org...

Also I know Im breaking the rules a little in the following points of mine so I apologise in advance:

heres a link to science confirming god"s existence:http://www.saintsandsceptics.org...

Heres a link to most probrably a quite well known argument called the kalam cosmological argument:https://m.youtube.com...

Another link prooving god"s existence:https://www.everystudent.com...

Miracles of the church:http://catholicsay.com...

Concluding statement:
With the following points in all 3 rounds,I conclude that god exists as there have been events which has not been explicable by science which only occurs in the catholic church(which then prooves only jesus exists as by far he has been one of the historical figures with tons of evidence revolving around),science,history and archeology confirms the bible and also science and the kalam cosmological argument and that link I found plus science all confirms the existence of god.

Rebuttals:
"...likely worn by a person who had experienced repeated torture." But if that is the case,why does the face look so similar to Jesus"s?

"How did they record into the history books a blood type that was not yet discovered? It makes no sense." Recorded events of the miracle in the 8th century. Miracle investigated in the 20th.

"In addition there was no where near enough room to fit all the food required to feed all these animals." According to what source? Were you there when it happened?

"In addition the animals could not have all reached Noah as quickly as the bible purports they did." According to what source? Were you there when it happened?

"I'm going to list a few contradictions in the bible to show its unreliability........" Whatever the case it still says the same thing of sorts. For example whatever the case Aadam died. Or whatever the case the sun was made like how we experience it every day. Etc.

"In the very same article he linked it said that it was impossible to confirm it was the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth." No where in the article did it say so. I re read the article.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
Death to the Gods worshiped by both Xtianity and that other God worshiped by Muslims.
Posted by KumarRanjan 3 years ago
KumarRanjan
I think every human being has different perceptions on God. So , saying Christian god is real may hurt peoples who follows or faith in any other god. I would like to say there are 7 billion of population and we use one word that they all are human being. Then, why don.y we say there are several gods and god is real.
Thank you.
Posted by Ockham 3 years ago
Ockham
Pro, I think you should have presented the evidence in your last speech first. As it stands, you presented weak evidence in your first and second speeches and then presented the vast majority of your evidence in the last round, where it doesn't count as much since your opponent cannot respond. I would vote Con on this debate if I could vote (I can't really vote, though, so it doesn't matter).
Posted by 32doni32nido32 3 years ago
32doni32nido32
Pro's argument was so bad it was funny...
I think he's joking.
I hope.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@Stabsdagoblin - Sorry the helicopter beanie on top of my head got entangled within my yodeling phallic chess piece from the you know where area to embark on new and different adventures from which I did not pay attention to as I am so used to the "pro" side of things. So I issue my humble apologies hence forth. Totally my fault.
Regardless, your opponent, in which I have debated before, how can sludge that drips dry come up with this crap and expect the world to believe it?
Posted by Stabsdagoblin 3 years ago
Stabsdagoblin
backwardseden you do realize that Percivil is pro and im con right?
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Never heard god, well con doesn't say which god, in the flesh. And then again nobody has ever proved any god from any religion has ever existed.
4. Which scientists? Certainly no worldwide scientists committee.
Professor Linoli? Who?
http://www.traditioninaction.org...
https://www.michaeljournal.org...
Oh yes of course. Naturally. Typical of a nobody that has to depend on websites that are as worthless as rotted meat on a plopsicle stick up his rear end to sniff out his cabbage batbrain earplugs. ALL CREATIONISTS, NO EXCEPTIONS, NONE, are completely and exceptionally worthless. Why? Because they cannot stand behind their product, namely their god. They know better. They are certainly a lot smarter and a lot more educated and more intelligent than Con as they will never put their god on trial again. Why? That's because they 100% know that they will lose. Why? Because these creationists know that all they have to go on is faith based oriented. And faith can never be proved. So since these creationists cannot stand behind their product, their god, it means that these creationists, all of them, cannot be trusted for anything that they state or say.

"If god does not exist, then how could this miracle have occured?"1. From creationists website, any fake and fraudulent thing can be said. 2. god? Which god? 3. Science, not proven by worldwide science. 4. con doesn't have a clue as to what happened so his solution is to say "god". 5. con cannot even prove his god even exists. etc etc etc con is a failure.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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