Instigator
Points: 14

It is possible for the Christian God to exist

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
OoDart
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Points: 7
Description
It is possible for the Christian God to exist.
Round 1
Published:
Just to clarify, in case this was missed, I am not arguing that the Christian God does exist, but that it is possible for Him to exist. The burden is on me, and I am expected to prove that He could exist.

Potential Evidence 1: There are many complex planets, solar systems, and galaxies in our universe. It is possible that this all came out of the Big Bang, but you cannot prove that God did not create it. No one can prove that. Even if you prove the Big Bang occurred, you cannot prove that God did not cause the Big Bang. In the book of Genesis, chapter 1 of the Christian Bible, we see that God created the universe. It does not specify how He created it, except that He spoke. He very well could have caused a Big Bang to occur.


Potential Evidence 2: The laws of science are universal. They work everywhere, always. This could be "just because" but it could be because when God created the universe, He made all things with the same rules to follow.


Potential Evidence 3: If someone were to see a book laying on the ground, they would not think, "Wow, a fully written book appeared over a long period of time but it has no author." They would think something along the lines of, "Wow, someone wrote a book and left it here." Human DNA has significantly more information than any single book mankind has ever written. It is up for debate as to how much information human DNA can actually hold, but it is at least 1.28 petabytes per gram of DNA.

You can read more about how much information human DNA can hold here: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/dna-could-store-all-worlds-data-one-room



I believe this information clearly shows that the Christian God could exist. I look forward to your response.
Published:
Thanks OoDart for creating this debate.

The burden is on me, and I am expected to prove that He could exist.
Okay then guess my burden is to simply state how your arguments are wrong.

Potential Evidence 1:

There are many complex planets, solar systems, and galaxies in our universe. It is possible that this all came out of the Big Bang, but you cannot prove that God did not create it. No one can prove that. Even if you prove the Big Bang occurred, you cannot prove that God did not cause the Big Bang. 
Your argument is not convincing nor does it state to be possible. If I say you can't prove God did do it we would go no where. Another problem is that anyone can believe their ideas until they come out wrong with evidence. In that time there is no evidence a person fascinated with aliens to the detriment to his/her family. This doesn't mean aliens exist. It just means we don't know so making a claim like they do without evidence is irrational and not productive.
In the book of Genesis, chapter 1 of the Christian Bible, we see that God created the universe. It does not specify how He created it, except that He spoke. He very well could have caused a Big Bang to occur.

I am sure the burden was on you to make it possible not simply state what something says. Saying X said this is not convincing unless of course you think the Bible is a reliable source of information. It would've have been good to make an argument for the Bible before this so that this part was more convincing but it isn't. Given that this is your argument I will still rebut it. The Bible is not a reliable source of information because events like Jesus' resurrection can't be replicated. That means we can't prove something observable yet if we go by the Bible being a reliable source of information it would require evidence to support their points. There is no evidence for Jesus' resurrection. The Bible is not a reliable source of information. 

Potential Evidence 2:

The laws of science are universal. They work everywhere, always. This could be "just because" but it could be because when God created the universe, He made all things with the same rules to follow.
This seems really similar to the last argument only instead of stating the other-side doesn't know God didn't do it you stated "it could be because when God created the universe, He made all things with the same rules to follow." I think you are missing what makes your point convincing like why should we take your could more than a person says God couldn't have done it. I'll still rebut this. In order to state God did this you require proof. Without proof your opinion is not substantial. This is a worse person than an agnostic (don't know God exists) or atheist (don't believe God exists) because you are making the claim God exists with certainty. In order for your knowledge claim to be worth anything you must demonstrate it. Bible quotes doesn't help you unless you have given an argument that the Bible is a reliable source of information which you haven't.

Potential Evidence 3:

If someone were to see a book laying on the ground, they would not think, "Wow, a fully written book appeared over a long period of time but it has no author." They would think something along the lines of, "Wow, someone wrote a book and left it here." Human DNA has significantly more information than any single book mankind has ever written. It is up for debate as to how much information human DNA can actually hold, but it is at least 1.28 petabytes per gram of DNA.
This fails because we can demonstrate a person writing a book. We can't demonstrate a person forming life. This problem alone shows why we can't jump to conclusions unless you have God cooking up stuff to create life as a VHS tape.

Your are also making the claim that Creatio Ex Nihilo (something out of nothing) can occur but the problem is that this has never been demonstrated. 

Over to you OoDart
Round 2
Published:
Thank you for responding.

Unfortunately, it does not seem that you actually gave any rebuttal for the arguments I provided.

First of all, in each of my arguments, I provided an example of how God COULD have done something. You did not prove it impossible for it to have happened. You only said I have no proof that He DOES exist - this is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.

Second, I would like to point out that you said, "The Bible is not a trustworthy source of information." It depends on the context of why I am using the Bible. I was using the Bible to explain what the Christian belief is, as Christians believe the Bible. The Bible clearly explains what Christians believe: God created the universe, but they have no religious belief about how He did it. The Bible IS a trustworthy source when explaining Christian beliefs.

Again, I thank you TheRealNihilist for participating in this debate, but it seems to me that you did not prove my claims incorrect. My claims showed it is possible for God to have done these things, and all you did was say the argument is not convincing. I am not trying to convince anyone that God does exist - just that it is possible for Him to exist.
Published:
Thank you for responding OoDart.

Unfortunately, it does not seem that you actually gave any rebuttal for the arguments I provided.
Please voters review this as a forfeit by my opponent or unwilling to give rebuttals so essentially the same thing just the same thing.

First of all, in each of my arguments, I provided an example of how God COULD have done something. You did not prove it impossible for it to have happened. You only said I have no proof that He DOES exist - this is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.
You said you had the burden here: 
The burden is on me, and I am expected to prove that He could exist.
No where did you mention I must also state my own argument outside rebuttals. Not my fault you didn't clearly lay out who had what burden.

Second, I would like to point out that you said, "The Bible is not a trustworthy source of information." It depends on the context of why I am using the Bible. I was using the Bible to explain what the Christian belief is, as Christians believe the Bible. The Bible clearly explains what Christians believe: God created the universe, but they have no religious belief about how He did it. The Bible IS a trustworthy source when explaining Christian beliefs.
This goes against the first claim which was "it does not seem that you actually gave any rebuttal for the arguments I provided.". If I gave no arguments then why did you point this out?

If it is a matter of belief then all you are doing is simply stating your simply demonstrating your irrationality not justifying it or making it rational. What was the point of this debate? To tell me a story?

Another problem here is that you didn't actually rebut the problem of why the Bible can't be reliable. Jesus' resurrection.

I am not trying to convince anyone that God does exist - just that it is possible for Him to exist.
If that is the case then I have a problem with this entire debate. Either you decide to rebut my claims brought forward or I will call this entire debate unfair. Instead of arguing the possibility of God existing you are simply defaulting I gave no argument even though I demonstrated your side to be wrong. With this in mind, I don't know what I am supposed to until my opponent rebuts my other claims apart from the Bible is not a reliable source of information.

Over to you OoDart.
Round 3
Published:
Thanks for the continual participation in the debate.

Admittedly, I miscommunicated during the 2nd round. The burden has been on me to show that the Christian God COULD exist throughout the debate.

I'll try to elaborate on why I used the Bible as a source.
If I am trying to explain what Christians believe, I will use the Bible to show what they believe. I am not saying that the Bible is necessarily historically or scientifically accurate, but that it is the authoritative book of Christianity. I was explaining what Christians believe and used the Bible as a source to show their belief - that they have no belief regarding how God allegedly created the universe.

Lastly, you responded to where I said "I am not trying to convince anyone that God does exist - just that it is possible for Him to exist."
You said the following:
If that is the case then I have a problem with this entire debate. Either you decide to rebut my claims brought forward or I will call this entire debate unfair. Instead of arguing the possibility of God existing you are simply defaulting I gave no argument even though I demonstrated your side to be wrong. With this in mind, I don't know what I am supposed to until my opponent rebuts my other claims apart from the Bible is not a reliable source of information.
I take great notice to "If that is the case then I have a problem with this entire debate." The name of the debate is literally "It is possible for the Christian God to exist." The name is not "The Christian God does exist." If you had a problem with this, you should not have taken part in the debate.


I also notice you said, "Even though I demonstrated your side to be wrong." You never did, and I called you out on that. Here, I will elaborate.

You previously said the following:
Your argument is not convincing nor does it state to be possible. If I say you can't prove God did do it we would go no where. Another problem is that anyone can believe their ideas until they come out wrong with evidence. In that time there is no evidence a person fascinated with aliens to the detriment to his/her family. This doesn't mean aliens exist. It just means we don't know so making a claim like they do without evidence is irrational and not productive.
Yes, you can say I cannot prove God did it. That's true, but that doesn't prove He did not, either, which is the whole point of the debate. Either He could have or He did not. You said, "In that time there is no evidence a person fascinated with aliens to the detriment to his/her family. This doesn't mean aliens exist." I agree with you. That does not mean aliens exist, and likewise, it does not mean they do not exist. We do not know. They could exist, similarly to how it is possible that the Christian God exists.

You also said this earlier:
 In order to state God did this you require proof. Without proof your opinion is not substantial.
Again, I am not trying to prove that God did anything, but that He could have.

I look forward to your response, TheRealNihilist.
Published:
Given time constraints I'll conclude with rebuttals in the next round. Sorry about this. I can't simply risk not replying with the time I have left.

Over to you OoDart
Round 4
Published:
I have nothing new to say, due to the lack of rebuttals or arguments given by my opponent in this debate. I understand that sometimes life throws us curveballs, so in no way do I intend this to be disrespectful or ignorant, but as far as the debate goes, this is disruptive to the discourse.

I suppose I extend what I have previously said and conclude with the following question: Is it possible for the Christian God to exist or is their demonstrable evidence proving He cannot?
Published:
Thank you OoDart for replying.

I will be summarizing what occurred during the debate.

Round 1:

My opponent used intelligent design as an argument for pretty much all 3 arguments.

The last argument was a false comparison given we can demonstrate a person writing and publishing a book.

My round 1 I showed the absurdity of simply stating God could exist because then you will have to give the same ground to people who believe in aliens as well.

I later on stated the argument my opponent made was not convincing because the Bible is not a reliable source of information. I used Jesus's resurrection to make this clear.

After that I stated the false comparison comparing God to something observable.

Creatio Ex Nihilo is brought up by me which has yet to be proven to occur.

Round 2:

My opponent basically did nothing eventful to the topic at hand. He also stated that proving God could exist is not important "You only said I have no proof that He DOES exist - this is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.". 

He also didn't even argue against the point that the Bible is a reliable source of information because of Jesus' resurrection instead said that it depends on the context. He also stated that it is good to know what Christians believe. The problem here is that this isn't about what Christians believe it is about if God could exist or not. 

I called out the non-existent rebuttals that my opponent gave. 

I also made clear who had what burden which just so happens you decide to change in round 2.

I also do call him out on stating I did provide no arguments but still rebutting the arguments I gave. Even though he did add something he wasn't providing an argument supporting his side.

I made it clear that my opponent didn't rebut my claims.

Lastly, I stated that if this was about anything is possible then this entire debate is unfair. 

Round 3:

My opponent decided to contradicted what he said earlier about who has what burden.

Then, my opponent makes a point about what Christians believe even thought the debate is about if the Biblical God exists not what Christians believe. 

My opponent then decided to rebut my this debate is unfair claim by saying you shouldn't have accepted the debate. Not addressing my critique simply addressing outside what was being argued.

He also admits he can't prove God so basically he can't prove it is possible God exists. Basically takes an agnostic stance where he is supposed to be Pro It is possible the Christian God exists. 

I didn't give arguments in my Round but I consider this the same thing my opponent did in Round 2.

Round 4:

My opponent provides an unfair burden on me which wasn't even made clear anywhere apart from the last round "Is it possible for the Christian God to exist or is their demonstrable evidence proving He cannot?". So basically I have to prove his theory incorrect if not it is possible. If it wasn't clear he has changed what I am supposed to do 3 times during the debate.

I think I have done enough to demonstrate the unfairness and bad arguments made by Pro. I hope people see that when voting.

Thanks OoDart for creating this debate.

Over to the voting period.  
Added:
--> @crossed
I agree with you completely, although that wasn't quite the topic of this debate.
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @OoDart
You are addressing something that i have been trying to say for years. all planets move in elliptical and are all conveniently round.sun and moon are both round. All the planets are round. I say god did this. They say it is because of gravity.The laws of physics have something to do with it to. I responds by saying god used gravity the reason why the laws of physics state everything must be perfect is because god is a lawmaker. you did not prove that it formed naturally. you just describe the details of my statement.
me
All planets are round all and move in an elliptical
Atheist
Gravity makes planets round and the laws of physics Issac nutan discovered says they must go in an elliptical.
So you agree with me. you just repeated what i said
Even though your not saying there is proof that he did it. your just saying there is no reason why he could not be the one to create it. While i am saying there is reason why he is the one who created it.
#4
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
My apologies. I managed to say trustworthy instead of reliable in my direct quote of you. I really have no idea how I did that.
Instigator
#3
Added:
i agree anything is possible if not probable
#2
Added:
Cool.
Contender
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Advice:
Pro, pretty good job. I do suggest resolutions which imply some degree of probability, but by pulling things back to the resolution rather than side tangents you won this debate.
Con, don't worry so much about line by line rebuttals to whatever someone else says, come up with an attack on the resolution itself. ... Don't get me wrong, still address the theme of someone else's case, but even when they have BoP there is nothing to stop you from introducing your own contentions. As an example, you could argue that possible things can be assigned some probability (there's various calculations for aliens as an example), and there is no basis for God having a probability (maybe even stack it and say the probability of God not existing =0.99999... to infinity, which in turn equals 1, leaving no possibility of God existing).
Arguments:
1. Many complex planets, solar systems, and galaxies in our universe
Doubtful, but possible.
Con's counter about aliens, really hurt his case. Were the debate about aliens possibly existing, saying their existence hasn't been proven would not counter the possibility.
2. The laws of science are universal
This could have been leveraged against the possibility of something violating those at a whim, instead con pointed out it hasn't been proven, which does not address the possibility as per the resolution...
3. DNA
Completely unsure how this is supposed to relate to God.
Conduct:
When asking voters to weight conduct, ensure yours is the preferable side...
"Please voters review this as a forfeit by my opponent or unwilling to give rebuttals so essentially the same thing just the same thing."
A forfeiture would give the conduct point, asking for this due to not liking the concise defense style of using the resolution, is very poor conduct. Much better to just adapt and make a better case (or explain the error in their reasoning, and extend points if they're proven topical). This is worse for the amount within that "forfeit" to which con then went on to reply. ... Con, you would not want people to consider your R4 forfeited, when you truly gave nothing to respond to within it. The end result of the waived round was not quite a final round blitzcreig, but it entered that dangerous conduct area.
Going on to Kritik the debate as unfair, would have been a valid tactic in R1 (E.G., 'mere possibility is meaningless, thus this debate is a truism troll debate, and I should win for possibly being the true uncaused cause which caused all others...'), but late in the game it felt like special pleading.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro's argument wouldn't be compelling in empirically proving God's existence, but does explain how it is 'possible'. Con's rebuttal would have been effective if the resolution were different, but the resolution questions the 'possibility' of a Christian deity existing; not the deity existing in actuality. Since it is the 'possibility' that is in question, Con would have been required to demonstrate that it is meta physically impossible for the Christian God to exist. The only part in Con's rebuttal that remotely touches on the 'possibility' of the Christian God would be that Creatio ex Nihilio (CEN) has never been observed (since if CEN is impossible then it would be impossible for the Christian God to exist). However, Con failed to demonstrate that CEN is an impossibility; at face value just because something hasn't been observed does not mean it is impossible. For example, aliens are metaphysically possible, yet have never been observed. Hence, at best, Con depicts the existence of the Christian God to be unlikely, but this is not enough for him to win the debate.