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

The christian god 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 562 times Debate No: 78201
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Hello to potential debaters, I am looking for any christian who is willing to have a respectful discussion about the likelihood of the existence of your god.

Structure is as follows:

Round 1- Only to accept debate

Round 2- Opening arguments

Round 3: Rebuttals

Round 4: Summaries

Rules are as follows:

1. No swearing
2. Any statistic or fact should be sourced
3. Follow round structure


there is no round four as con posited, so i will just point out some ideas.

Jesus was known from non christian historical sources to have existed.
they noted that he died at the hands of Pilot.

"There is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically"
"three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus: two in the writings of the Jewish gistorian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three has been questioned, and one is generally accepted as having been altered by Christians, most scholars believe they are at least partially authentic."

'Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and over a period of one to three years debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who officiated 26–36 AD'
Amy-Jill Levine; Dale C. Allison Jr.; John Dominic Crossan (16 October 2006). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. p. 4.ISBN 0-691-00992-9.

his apostles were willing to die for their beliefs, which has historical proofs, while people by far are known to wouldn't be willing to die for a scam.

putative miracles occur to followers of the christian God, while the same sort of occurrences have not been shown to occur to atheists.

people experience Jesus in near death experiences, while they by far do not experience other religoius figures.
Debate Round No. 1


I apologize for screwing up the formatting of the debate, this is my first time using this website or having any online debate at all. That being said I guess we can re-structure the debate to be a (somewhat unstructured) back and forth between the two of us. This of course means that you will have a third round while I will only have 2, but this is fine with me if it is O.K with you.

To begin my argument I would like to say that I personally do not question the existence of Jesus Christ. I do not affirm his existence either. I think it is far more likely that Jesus did exist than that he did not. Now accepting Jesus's existence as fact, I find it impossible to accept other aspects of his life as fact (ex. walked on water, cured sick people, change water into wine etc.). *though these miracles are widely known to be within the bible, just to be in accordance with the rules

You point to Jesus's apostles loyalty, in their willingness to die for Jesus, as some form of proof that Jesus was legitimate in what he preached. Well, this is yet another argument that holds no weight at all for me. Take a look at the Jihadists involved in 9/11 or any other Islamic Jihad that involved devout muslims sacrificing their life for their god. In order for Christianity to be true, and for the Christian god to exist, Islam must be false. Therefore, according to your belief system, all the Jihadists who have sacrificed their lives were "willing to die for their beliefs, which has historical proofs, while people by far are known to wouldn't [not?] be willing to die for a scam". Either you must admit that Islam is true, or you must admit that your point about his apostles loyalty is near meaningless. Also, all of this is working on the assumption that Jesus's apostles truly were willing to die for him, you cited no source for this information, but I digress.

Your next point, "putative miracles occur to followers of the Christian God, while the same sort of occurrences have not been shown to occur to atheists". Your word choice of "putative" is interesting to me. If you can point to me a single instance of a miracle that a christian experienced that is putative within, the general world, the scientific community, or any community independent of christianity, I would be very interested. Perhaps your definition of miracle is different from mine. I define the word miracle as "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency", therefore to me, the intense feeling of awe one experiences while looking into the eyes of their newborn does not qualify as a miracle, for this infatuation can be explained by natural or scientific laws.

Your final point is another that I feel is very easy to dissect and expose as erroneous. "People experience Jesus in near death experiences, while they by far do not experience other religious figures". The notion that people who experience near death only experience jesus is false. Below is a link to a website encapsulating the testimony of a jewish woman who said to have seen angels of death in accordance with her Jewish faith when faced with near death.
All of your arguments have been based around non empirical testimonies of individuals (or sometimes groups) belonging to the christian faith. I would like to stress to you how easily fabricated these stories can be with this example of a boy who wrote a best selling book about his meeting with jesus when he experienced a near death. If a six year old boy could do it, and write a book that was revered as truth by thousands of christians, what makes you think others couldnt do the same?


there is a difference between the apostles who were martyred and the modern day muslim martry. the apostles claimed to have seen Jesus.

as to miracles, i've cited some in the debate on this subject i'm having.

you seem perhaps receptive to at least things that seem to be miracles to some people. so where is your examples happening to atheists? that is a standing debate ive had for a long time at this website, and i have never gotten even one example. all i've gotten are rationalizations for twhy they happen to believers and not atheists.

angels of death are not just a jewish concept. first, angels are part of christian religion too. second, judiasm is a precurser religion to christinaity so their concepts have some basis in christianity as well.

while some NDEs are made up, there is plenty of testimony to know most are not made up.
Debate Round No. 2


These miracles that you have cited have one thing in common, they are all documented by Christians. No non- christian has ever looked at a christian medical patient who underwent an impressive recovery and said "this must be a miracle of god". This is because of a phycological phenomenon known as confirmation bias, which can be read up on here:
As for miracles happening to atheists- Ill tell you exactly why it doesn't happen. Atheists don't believe in miracles. If an atheist is cured from cancer, he will credit luck or treatment, and not a miraculous work of god. This is why atheists never experience miracles. In other words, atheists and non christians do experience things that would be classified as miracles if they were christian, but since they don't believe in miracles they correctly classify their good fortune as just that- good fortune, existing within the confines of scientific and natural law.

You say that while some "NDE's are made up, there is plenty of testimony to know most are not made up.", once again, there are thousands of people in ancient greek history who would testify to having an experience with Zeus. By your logic, if I convince enough people to testify that I am a 20 foot tall ant, it will be true. No matter how many people believe in something, belief itself can not make anything more or less true than it is.

Now to add some new ideas to the discussion, consider this: according to the bible, god is omniscient(1). This means that he knows everything, including what you're doing, thinking, wanting, and what you will be doing, thinking, and wanting in 20 years. This means that when god created Adam and Eve, he knew that Adam would eat from the forbidden tree, but he decided to let this unfold. This means that he intentionally created man as a sinful being, but he decided to do so anyways, even though he knew this would eventually mean sacrificing his own son to atone for the sins of mankind (which also makes no sense, as murdering an innocent man on behalf of wrongdoing others is easily recognizable as immoral). How could such an immoral god be perfectly moral as stated by the bible(2)?

The bible explicitly states that it is god's will that all those who do not accept christ will be sent to hell, or the alternative to heaven, as shown the quote "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" John 3:3 (3). As previously established, according to the bible god is perfectly moral. With this being established, how could a perfectly moral god create a world where 68.5% of people will suffer an eternity in hell for the simple act of not believing in him, when he gives extremely inadequate evidence to believe in him in the first place(4)? Beyond this, a serial murderer can easily make it into heaven and avoid an eternity in hell simply by repenting and accepting jesus as his savior. Does this seem like a perfectly moral god to you?

My next (and final, as I have few characters left) point is this. The bible makes many grand claims about the universe that are easily falsifiable. One of the silliest and most easily proven wrong is the claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old (5). I do not have the characters to explain why this is extremely untrue, so I will attach this (6). If the bible claims to be the perfect word of god, yet it is clearly wrong about many things, why should you believe it is right about anything? Much less it's grandest claim, that it's god is the one true god.



dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
con says the things recognized as miracles by christians do happen to athestis, but they just dont recognize them as such. still, though, con should be able to provide an example of what would be called a miracle to a theist happening to an atheist, and he as well as tons of others have not done so.

con hasn't shown anyone having an experience of Zeus, he just claims it has occurred.
Posted by Josh2900 3 years ago
All those three secular sources were written decades after jesus's death.
Paul wrote about Jesus 20 years after his death.
Gospels on resurection were written 40 to 90 years after the death of Jesus.
Paul mentions of no empty tomb.
Paul's mention of resurrection is mostly a spiritual one, not psychical.
Gospels say there's an empty tomb yet the earliest Paul doesn't so it's added in later to believe in a physical resurrection.
No evidence that the disciples died for what they believed.
No evidence for the 500 witnesses.
Posted by notatheist 3 years ago
I am new to this website and am not sure if you will be notified when I comment, but I would be happy to debate the exact same issue with you TheOpinionist if you would like, as I am sure your arguments would be very different from the person who accepted this one. If you are interested feel free to challenge me and make all rules and procedures yourself.
Posted by TheOpinionist 3 years ago
Agh I wanted this one.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 3 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited last round.