The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a real event

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,372 times Debate No: 54745
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




First round: Acceptance
Second round: Facts/Argument
Third round: Facts/Argument
Fourth round: Closing statements

I look forward to my opponents debate. Good luck.


I accept. I hope you don't mind me playing devil's advocate.
Debate Round No. 1


jp_porwisz10 forfeited this round.


As you have probably noticed, my opponent forfeited round 2, which was supposed to be his opening arguments. There are two rounds to go after this one, and he may be back, so I thought I ought to at least offer a rudimentary argument against the resurrection just in case. I'm not going to make it very long or detail because I don't want to put a lot of effort into it or nothing. If my opponent argues in the next round, then I'll offer something more.

Imagine if I were going to have dinner with you at 7:30 pm, but I didn't show up until 8:30 pm. If you ask me what kept me so long and I told you I had a flat tire on my way over, you would probably have no trouble believing me, and it would be reasonable for you to do so. But suppose I said I stopped at the store to pick up some drinks on my way over, and I ran into Kate Beckinsale. We hit it off, and she decided she wanted to make out in the car, so we spent a good amount of time just smooching. In that case, my word would be good enough. You'd need more evidence than just my word before you'd be justified in believing me. And that would be reasonable.

So some claims just require more evidence than other claims before it's reasonable to believe them. The claim that a man who had been dead for three days came back to life is quite a bit more far fetched than most other claims we hear. It's certainly more far fetched than the claim that a man lied about his identity, or a woman lied about her whereabouts. So we ought to have more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than we would require from most other claims before it's reasonable for us to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.

But there is no such evidence. Given the evidence we have, there are a number of possible scenarios that would explain the origin of Christianity without having to resort to a resurrection. For example, maybe the disciples stole the body. Maybe they hallucinated. Maybe only Peter saw Jesus, and he convinced everybody else who also claimed to see Jesus just for the sake of status. The imagination reels at all the possibilities.

The arguments against the alternative explanations all fail because when you weigh the probability of the alternative to the probability that a dead man came back to life, however low the probability of the atlernative explanation is, the probability of the resurrection is always lower.

For example, there's the die for a lie argument. It is argued that since nobody in their right mind would die for something they knew wasn't true, then obviously the disciples didn't steal the body because if they had, then they would've known that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

We can grant that it would be quite unusual for a person to willingly die for something they knew wasn't true, but people do crazy things all the time that don't make sense, and it's still more likely that some nut would die for a lie than it is that a dead man would come back to life.

Almost any scenario is more likely than a resurrection.

Adding God to the picture doesn't change things much either. We can grant the possible existence of God and his powers to raise the dead, and resurrection would still be improbable. After all, there have been billions of people who have lived over thousands of years, but how often is it that somebody rises from the dead? Even if you grant that all the claimed resurrections were true, the probability that any particular person will rise from the dead is extremely remote. So the probability that Jesus rose from the dead is also remote.

There are some other reasons to doubt the resurrection of Jesus, but I'll wait until the next round to bring them up. Or, if my opponent forfeits again, I guess it won't be necessary.
Debate Round No. 2


No such evidence. If their is no such evidence, why is their roman accounts to Jesus Christ ressurecting. You are right, you do need evidence to support something like this, and like I just said, their are infact real roman accounts of Jesus Christ ressurecting from the dead. Such an event like this happened 2014 years ago, and to support this you would need witnesses. Sadly, I doubt anyone lives this long, so the roman accounts are almost like witnesses


Pro disputes my claim that there is "no such evidence" on the basis that there are Roman accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. But he fails to take into account the meaning of "such" in my statement. What I argued in the previous round was that there was no evidence for the resurrection that was such that it could overcome the enormous improbability of a dead man coming back to life. Maybe there is evidence for the resurrection, but it's not strong enough to overcome the initial improbability. Just like when I was late for dinner and explained that I was smooching with Kate Beckinsale, my lateness and my word are evidence that I smooched Kate Beckinsale, but they are not evidence sufficient to overcome the improbability that that would happen.

Pro claims there are Roman accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, but he doesn't tell us anything about them. Are these claims that some Roman actually saw Jesus rise from the dead? Or are these claims that some Roman reported that Christians claimed that Jesus rose from the dead? Or are these claims from Roman doctors who examined Jesus and determined that he rose from the dead? Are these credible Roman sources? Are they satires? Are they news reports? Are they historical novels? Pro just doesn't give us anything to go on.
Debate Round No. 3


These claims state that Jesus Christ was crucified on a Friday and rose on a Sunday, which is why Christianity's Sabbath Day is Sunday. Con is making no evidence to support that the Resurrection never happened, only making rebuttals. It seems like the evidence to support the resurrection is there.


In the last round, Con told us there were Roman accounts of Jesus rising from the dead, and I pointed out that we needed some kind of citation or explanation of these accounts before we could assess the validity of Pro's claim. In this round, he simply told us that the accounts include Jesus being crucified on Friday and rising on Sunday, but again, he doesn't tell us anything at all about these accounts. I don't think this amounts to an argument for the resurrection, so I don't think Pro has carried his burden of proof.

Pro also said, "Con is making no evidence to support that the Resurrection never happened, only making rebuttals." I have two things to say about that:

1. The burden of proof is on Pro in this debate, so all I had to offer was rebuttals. Since I don't have the burden of proof, I didn't have to argue that the resurrection never happened.

2. I did, in fact, argue that the resurrection never happened. I gave an argument against the resurrection from probability. Con never responded to that argument, so it stands unrefuted.

In conclusion, Pro didn't offer us anything more than his say so that there were Roman accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, but he gave us no evidence that such accounts exist or that we should trust them. I, on the other hand, gave an argument against the resurrection of Jesus that Pro never responded to. So voting should be easy on this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by bellaboop88 7 years ago
duh the resurrection happened! if you don't believe it, then tell me how researchers have discovered large sulfur pockets underground where sulfur is not at all common. I know, because God destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by raining down burning sulfur from the heavens. if God can make the sky rain fire, then he can make one man, his only son, raise from the dead. God is the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and Omega, King of kings, Lord of lords. He can do anything, and we cant do anything to stop it. Nothing.
Posted by philochristos 7 years ago
Arctimes, I don't know if that was a joke or not, but "playing devil's advocate" is just an expression meaning I'm going to argue a point of view I don't actually hold to.
Posted by Burncastle 7 years ago
Man, I'm always a couple hours to late for these debates... Damn it
Posted by ArcTImes 7 years ago
You being a christian doesn't make you the devil's advocate. I would totally debate someone that tries to prove that god doesn't exist and I'm an atheist.
Posted by jp_porwisz10 7 years ago
Oh ok
Posted by philochristos 7 years ago
I'm playing devil's advocate.
Posted by jp_porwisz10 7 years ago
Why is the guy debating me a christian?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 7 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: No brainer. Burden of proof was on Pro, and all he did was make baseless, unsourced assertions that Roman records of his resurrection exist. Con, meanwhile, showed that the implausibility of Jesus's resurrection would require very solid evidence in order to be accepted as true. Plus, Pro forfeited a round.

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