Instigator / Pro
28
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#1872

The God of Christianity does not exist

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
6
Better sources
8
6
Better legibility
4
3
Better conduct
4
3

After 4 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

David
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
18
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

In this debate, I will be showing that the God of Christianity does not exist. The burden of proof is shared. It is incumbent on me to improve that he does not exist while my opponent must bring forth arguments to show that he does.

Round structure
1. Opening
2. Rebuttals
3. Defense
4. Close

-->
@Shamayita

I agree with Virtuoso. Thank you.

-->
@fauxlaw

Thank you, my friend.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

Thanks for your commentary. At least you had the decency in your vote to mention both participants and you made a sound judgment between us.

-->
@David

Congratulations on winning the debate. Your arguments were well done, and I thoroughly enjoyed debating the subject.

-->
@nmvarco

Thank you for your vote.

-->
@Shamayita

Thank you. i'm glad you enjoyed the debate.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

In your vote, you declare wonder of which God is being debated. Hint: Read the debate proposal, "The God of Christianity does not exist." If your vote is as careless as your wonder... Hmmm?

-->
@Barney
@BrotherDThomas

Hell of a vote-bomb, BrotherDThomas. Good thing your vote did not change the outcome of the debate.

This is very interesting. Arguments are really strong. Loved this.

-->
@David
@fauxlaw

---RFD (1 of 2)---
1. problem of evil
Pro opens with a syllogism, and expands it with:
1.1 natural evils: Cancer and natural disasters, pretty much speak for themselves.
1.2 evil done to others: Going to just summarize pro’s case here with the powerful quote he offered: “If there is Auschwitz, there is no God.”
1.3 evil we do to ourselves: With pro conceding that it’s most easy to justify, I’m giving the other two my attention instead.

Disorganized, but con makes a decent defense against the omnipotence problem: “having such power does not compel Him to express that power”
Much later he insists that the problem of evil does not matter because evil will lose. The big one to me is natural evils, which do not have any obvious connection to free will. Con seems to state this was refuted someone didn’t do the work of digging deeper for an answer to next major contention. I’m also drawn back to the Halam Cohen quote.

2. argument from Biblical defects
Pro’s case apparently got harmed by the limited types of lists and bullet points.
So almost a half million variations of the gospels, and disagreement as to where stories are supposed to be organized.
Internal disagreement on such things as genealogy, place of birth, residences… Jesus is not going to get a security clearance.
Ethical defects are noted (throwing up in my mouth at the rapist part, as I usually do). Con defends the Dawkins quite since God is fictional (I think I get where he meant to go with that, it’s a good question to ask Dawkins, but it’s giving up a lot of ground in a debate when you’re trying to disprove the notion that God is fictional).
Con does pretty good against the Bible must be the only authoritative evidence of God point (FYI, calling him Teddy Drange initially caused him to not show up when I cross referenced). And offers the Book of Mormon. Pro commits a major pet peeve of mine, by claiming “yet the only positive evidence con cites for the existence of God is this Bible,” which with the book of Mormon is untrue (at least until such time as that is challenged as not being for the Christian God but rather the Mormon God … pro questions this validity at the very end of that round, the next round while con cites the book of Mormon, he never calls it out by name, and seemingly does not defend the overall relevance beyond using a renewed stream analogy complete with people intentionally pissing in it (his words, not mine)). Pro extends “This is about Christianity, not Mormonism.” Con says there’s some golden plates which say Mormonism is Christianity. … I think if Mormonism counts as Christianity is a debate worthy topic, but by default it does not (it is indeed an Abrahamic faith, much like Islam and Catholicism).

Con concedes: “there are plenty of biblical contradictions,” but disagrees with the conclusion. This is a risky bit, as the Bible is normally key evidence as the one making the claims.

Con argues that science evolving proves contradiction does not disprove anything… Ok, I am not understanding this whataboutism.
Pro defends that science uses learning, making it more reliable in the long term. Con says the bible uses virtually the same standard including experimentation, and argues that much like a builder the disbeliever must first fully invest in trying to believe in God before they can dismiss.

Con insists on the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence: “I see no link in the if/then statement of 1 simply by the evidence that God, if He exists, [playing devil’s advocate] did and does not reveal truth to man”
Pro counters with a Christopher Hitchens quote: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Con basically counters that on the basis that Christopher Hitchens is not a prophet of the lord, his opinion on God existing or not is worthless.

3. Counter Case
Con opens his counter with the rhetorical comparison to Scientific American. It took me a minute to get the connection to the bible he was going for, but I get it.

I believe con argues there are some humans with additional senses, to which proves God must exist.

Con cites how long it has been since God appeared to anyone. Pro seemingly leverages this with a deadbeat dad comparison.

---RFD (2 of 2)---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
This is stated in the description to have shared BoP. This becomes a major weighting point for me, as it is not about if pro outright proves the unprovable, but rather who does a better job supporting their ends of it. Pro leveraged cancer and natural disasters. Con basically threw out the Christian holy book, suggesting we should use a different one, and even double checking the comment section I am not seeing any pre-agreement to that extension of Christianity against the status quo.
I’m going to call this a weak victory for pro.

Sources:
Both put in good effort on their research.

S&G:
Even under revised systems I would not penalize this, but it is worth noting that organization was a boon to pro and a bane to con.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

Thanks for voting

Made it thought the first round of this. I'll try to get back to it, but I have a lot going on tomorrow. So here's my preliminaries from R1.

1. problem of evil
Pro opens with a syllogism, and expands it with:
1.1 natural evils: Cancer and natural disasters, pretty much speak for themselves.
1.2 evil done to others: Going to just summarize pro’s case here with the powerful quote he offered: “If there is Auschwitz, there is no God.”
1.3 evil we do to ourselves: With pro conceding that it’s most easy to justify, I’m giving the other two my attention inuste

Disorganized, but con makes a decent defense against the omnipotence problem: “having such power does not compel Him to express that power”

2. argument from Biblical defects
Pro’s case apparently got harmed by the limited types of lists and bullet points.
So almost a half million variations of the gospels, and disagreement as to where stories are supposed to be organized.
Internal disagreement on such things as genealogy, place of birth, residences… Jesus is not going to get a security clearance.
Ethical defects are noted (throwing up in my mouth at the rapist part, as I usually do). Con defends the Dawkins quite since God is fictional (I think I get where he meant to go with that, it’s a good question to ask Dawkins, but it’s giving up a lot of ground in a debate when you’re trying to disprove the notion that God is fictional).
Con does pretty good against the Bible must be the only authoritative evidence of God point (FYI, calling him Teddy Drange initially caused him to not show up when I cross referenced). And offers the Book of Mormon.

Con concedes: “there are plenty of biblical contradictions,” but disagrees with the conclusion. This is a risky bit, as the Bible is normally key evidence as the one making the claims (I later see the Book of Mormon offered as better evidence for the Christian God; I'm curious where that's going to go in this debate).

Con argues that science evolving proves contradiction does not disprove anything… Ok, I am not understanding this whataboutism.

3. Counter Case
Con opens his counter with the rhetorical comparison to Scientific American. It took me a minute to get the connection to the bible he was going for, but I get it.

I believe con argues there are some humans with additional senses, to which proves God must exist.

Con cites how long it’s been since God appeared to anyone.

I'm going to vote on this. (declaring this to better hold myself accountable)

Three days remain for voting.

Looks like this is still going on.

-->
@David

Revision of round 1 with headings - #4

IV.b Faith expanded by God’s continued revelation
However, contrary to Pro’s claim, citing a modified syllogism from Theodore Drange “If the God of Christianity were to exist, then the Bible would be God’s only written revelation.” According to whom? Teddy Drange? Who’s he? Well, I know who he is, and he has a doctorate in philosophy and religion. I know of another fellow. Richard Bach. He’s an author. No, he doesn’t have credentials like Drange, but his credentials are biting: “The greatest sin is to limit God. Don’t.” I agree. Who will tell God He cannot reveal anything more than the Bible? Doesn’t the Bible conclude with the verse: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:”

In truth, how can there be more scripture revealed after that? Well, because as John was writing those words on the Isle of Patmos, the “Holy Bible” did not yet exist; that was not the book to which he referred. It was his book, Revelation, his scroll upon which he was writing. John, having witnessed much, knew better than to limit God.

IV.b.1 Working faith: a new revelation
So I will offer, for example, the Book of Mormon, which describes exactly the formula we seek in putting action into hope and faith to deliver a knowledge of God: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
“And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.”

As there is no substance to the claim that God does not reveal anything anymore, and that only the Bible can be the sole revelation to Christendom, on the say-so of a man, a man, by the way, who claims there is no God [so, what else is he going to claim?], I, also being a man, declare that God can speak to any damn fool He pleases, thank you very much.

I will particularly raise this claim against many Christians who also believe God stopped talking to man when he revealed to John the words God knew would conclude His Bible some hundred years later, and has clammed up since.

Why? Because we claim He no longer reveals to man? Tell me when we were granted omnipotent power to cause that. Omniscient power. Blasphemy, then? I didn’t limit God. Y’all did that. I’m claiming He still reveals to man, and always will.

So, study the words of Moroni above. He gives a formula as dependable as 1+2+3+4+5+6+7 = ∞. The following formula may be used in conjunction with the latter simple sum by saying:

This < ∞
𝚺 1
N = 1 N. [sorry, this formula messes up in the comments - can't make it right]
Which effectively says: sum the reciprocols of natural numbers given in the first formula until the total is above infinity. In other words, repeat the first formula exactly until cows come home and you have acquired all the truth you need and want.

If the truth you seek happens to be: “Does God exist,” ask, as noted by Moroni’s formula, “Does God exist?” If all elements of the formula are engaged under the conditions noted, then refer to the end of the fourth, and the fifth verse. No further citation needed; try the formula as given. Citation will occur, direct from God by personal revelation, just as He revealed to Peter the divinity of Christ. I am serious. But, as the prophet, Yoda said: “Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try.”

*all references to “OED” are linked to a paid members-only site that cannot be accessed by non-members. Unless you are a member, you must take my word of honor on these definitions. I swear upon my faithful quoting of same.

1 Holy Bible, Hebrews 11: 1
2 Holy Bible, Acts 2: 3
3 https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/193042?redirectedFrom=substance#eid *
4 Holy Bible, Hebrews 11: 2
5 Holy Bible, Matthew 16: 15 - 17
6 Holy Bible, John 4: 24
7 Bach, Richard, Illusions, the adventures of a reluctant messiah, Dell, 1977
8 Holy Bible, Revelation 22: 17
9 Book of Mormon, Moroni 10: 4, 5

-->
@David

Revision of round 1 with headings - #3

III Bible Contradictions do not disprove God
Yes, I’ll acknowledge there are plenty of biblical contradictions, so Pro need not argue the point too heavily; I’ll likely agree with him. [memo: again, I’ve pre-written this and now that Virtuoso has posted round 1, I wholeheartedly agree with all he says about this, with a couple of exceptions I’ll develop later, while disagreeing on conclusions drawn, but will restrain until round 2 rebuttal]. Where I think we’ll separate is that in spite of these contradictions, I still believe the Holy Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. In no wise do I suggest the Holy Bible is infallible. That this is so is evident just by a comparative read of the translations and transcriptions from the predominately Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, and predominately Greek texts of the New, into the popular languages of today; i.e. Latin, English, French, German, etc. Pro has acknowledged this point, but, even if translations were spot on correct, there would still be perceived contradictions, as Pro has also addressed. Does this mean the Holy Bible is not the Word of God? No, it means it is the product of inspired men. Even inspired men make mistakes, even while discussing the truth. The Holy Bible simply is not a product manufactured by the power of God. Neither is the Torah, the Qu’ran, and many other examples of holy writ outside of the Abrahamic religions. They are the products of men. As Pro offered, “…the Bible is not perfectly clear and authoritative, and has the appearance of merely human authorship.”

However, lets look at the products of science: Is the concept of geocentrism true science? It once was, a mere 2,500 years ago. So was heliocentrism in the 17th century, just 400 years ago. Now? No. Contradiction, yes; backward and forward, because galactoctocentrism is no longer the accepted science, either, but it was.
Scientific contradiction?

Observe that we once considered there were but four elements: earth, air, water and fire. Is that contradicted today? Need I cite? There are plenty of other examples, such as the nature of DNA, which Darwin poked at, among others, and, some twenty years later, more was discovered of the phenomenon of DNA, but only by an enterprising Swiss physician/researcher who decided to make serious inquiry by use of the discarded afterbirth of some unidentified birth [amniotic sac, placenta, and umbilical]. From refuse, we made the first significant foray into understanding the stuff of human genetic patterning. Not necessarily contradictive, but certainly ironic.

That there are biblical contradictions, I’ll agree, but Pro’s stool of three legs is now two [or one since he has combined two of them]. Contradiction just got whacked, because the phenomenon occurs to science, too. It’s a balancing act from here on, and I have given a suitable offering to exhibit faith, but I have not yet given evidence for God. The path to that evidence is faith, that elusive sixth sense.

IV How to work faith
How does faith work? Rather, how do we work with faith to acquire knowledge, to see “the evidence of things not seen?”

Oh, how I wish Paul had extended his 11th chapter of Hebrews, because I am confident he knew the path of hope, to faith, to knowledge of God. Perhaps he did, and it has been maliciously removed [I cannot prove that, and will not make the attempt], or ignorantly removed [same disclaimer], or, it was never there [same disclaimer].

IV.a Faith defeats fiction
Well, fortunately, Pro’s quote by Richard Dawkins in round 1 is relevant: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:…” Yes, as one would expect some character of fiction sitting atop the heap of despicable characteristics that follow to be. By this description, that fellow is truly vile, and Dawkins spares no horses in the description… of a fictional fellow. So, if it is fiction, why is Dawkins, a renowned atheist, so wrapped around the axle on the subject? If it’s fiction, enjoy the story, and move on to the next book.

-->
@David

Revision of round 1 with headings - #2

II Revelation
Paul does not tell us that this substance and evidence are matters to be assessed by our typical senses, however, he does tell us that these things are revealed to us: “For by it [faith] the elders obtained a good report.” That is, a thing was revealed to them that they had not known before it was revealed. There is other evidence of revelation, and that it is from God: In Matthew, we read of the experience when Jesus asked his apostles whom others said Jesus was, and they replied that some thought he was John the Baptist, or Elias, or Jeremias… Jesus then asked, “But whom say ye that I am?
“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

A careful read of the following verses, which many consider the evidence that Peter was “the Rock” upon which Christ’s church was founded, will expose a different interpretation; that revelation is the rock upon which Christ’s church is founded.
Revelation, then, that sublime communication from God, which many consider to have ended with the end of the Holy Bible, is an ongoing phenomenon, ongoing to anyone who expresses the faith described by Paul. Ongoing, because one may ask: why did God appear and speak to men in ages past, even up to 2,000 years ago, but has since ceased this activity?

No wonder people such as my opponent, believe God does not exist. They’ve seen no modern evidence that He still communicates. Even many who believe God exists stop at the point of embracing the idea of modern revelation form God. They will even pray that all suffering of mankind cease, as if they expected this revelation, but no other, and on the basis of the apparent failure of God to comply, lose their faith and determine He is not, or He would remove the suffering.

They ignore an important consideration. They who still believe insist that God is omniscient and omnipresent. I agree; He is. However, I also believe that having such power does not compel Him to express that power. My neighbor, who is at some distance from my home, has the power to knock down the fence between our properties. So do I. That we mutually agree to keep it in place is the simple demonstration of this point of having power, but not necessarily inclined to use it.

There is an argument that God does not exist because it does not make sense that an unembodied God should make an embodied man [and the rest of the world, as well], to achieve an unembodied state, like that God, except that man cannot become like God, they say, therefore, He, God, made an embodied man to… or else an embodied man made an unembodied God to… it’s a circular reference by whichever reference of who made whom.

So what, pray tell, insists that God is unembodied? Yeah, yeah, there’s that scripture [conflict?] in John, “God is a Spirit…” and that feeds the above argument with the circular reference. No one gets anywhere on a merry-go-round. My opponent argued, in Comments that he had, “three arguments: the problem of evil, biblical defects, and contradictory properties.” [memo: this was all written up to now before Virtuoso posted his first round, and he has combined the second two arguments into one] On the whole, I will argue these matters by rebuttal in round 2, but for now, I will close on the matter [but not entirely – I’ll leave some for rebuttal] of “contradictory properties.”

-->
@David

Revision of round 1 with headings - #1
This is a classic debate. Always has been, always will be, at least until such time as someone, God, if no one else, exhibits the undeniable evidence in His favor. One might argue, even then, that the evidence is not sound. Privilege, I suppose, is the grand gift of agency; even the privilege to deny.

I. It’s about faith and evidence
Let me note, first, Pro’s #8 comment in the Comments tab: “It’s all about faith, not evidence.” Pro may not accept biblical, or for that matter, other scriptural reference, but since pro has not defined sourcing limitations, and since, clearly, such volumes that some consider holy writ exist, whether or not one believes their content, one may apply the same denial for the same reason to Scientific American, for example; a monthly magazine to which I once subscribed and considered as a reliable source of information. As past issues are now available online, I no longer subscribe. Men and women write it. So was, for example, the Bible. I see no evidence that God wrote one jot or tittle of it. Inspired, yes, by my observation.

So, I will claim first, that it is all about faith and evidence. I will cite, first, from Hebrews in the New Testament, which gave about as valid a definition of faith as I have ever observed: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” [bolded for emphasis]

I.a Faith > Substance
This is Paul, the Apostle, writing an epistle to the Hebrews – understood as Jews, then, and said of himself, “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus… yet brought up in this city [Jerusalem].”

Relative to the verse from Hebrews, Paul allows that “faith” is a “substance” of things for which hope is the delivery of that substance. The Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, “OED”] has several definitions of this word, but highlights a first definition, which then splits by two subsets. I’ll key on two of them; theological, and philosophical.

“Substance: 1. Senses relating to the nature or essence of something.
“i. Substance [theo]: the divine essence or nature, esp, as that which the three persons of the Trinity are united as one”
“ii, Substance [philo]: A being that subsists of itself; a distinct individual entity; [also gen.] a thing, being”

I.b Faith > Evidence
Note that the substance is a matter of hope according to Paul; it is not necessarily a current acquisition, but something to be revealed in a future, but accessible time to come. Paul follows this hope by saying that faith is the “evidence of things not seen;” evidence understood to mean proof of a thing beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a court of law, or as empirically derived knowledge in a scientific theorem, but not currently seen. Apparently, “faith” is an ability to “see” with eyes that are not those mounted as a pair in the heads of humankind. I suppose Paul might have meant “spiritual eyes;” those tools of the Spirit, which know by a sense beyond the typical five physical senses we humans, share: sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.

We depend on these senses for much of what we call “empiric evidence,” or even “truth.” Loss of them is a tragic consequence, virtually negating ourselves from our world.

However, are we limited to these five? We know there are other, lesser beings with which we share the earth which possess other senses, such as echo location, and sensitivity to earth’s magnetic field. Is it, then, possible, since these other creatures mostly also share these five senses with us, that humans have access to additional senses? The idea may not be so impossible to consider. Is it possible that one of them may align with Paul’s definition of “faith?” A substance delivered by hope, and evidence of things unseen by human, physical eyes?

-->
@David

It's hard to live a life free from faith in anything. Has it ever been done I wonder?

-->
@fauxlaw

Lol. Yeah, I was adding a third argument but felt the first two were good enough. Plus I really want to avoid gish galloping.

-->
@David

Such a good line. Oh, well. Really, I was not going to bring it up. I fear unicorns. Particularly invisible ones that happen to be pink. Got to be afraid of something; might as well be that.

-->
@fauxlaw

Ignore the ". Similarly, an invisible pink unicorn cannot exist because." I forgot to delete that

-->
@fauxlaw

Thank you, my friend! Good luck.

-->
@David

Gad to have you engaged in another debate! Good luck, my friend. I agree to your terms as stated. Read and weep all you who comment, but would not engage. Comment to your cows coming home. Meanwhile, Virtuso and I eat steak. [assuming you're a carnivore - can't make that assumption any more!]

-->
@sigmaphil

Hence my problem with Christianity: It's all about faith and not evidence.

-->
@sigmaphil

I would say that every religion is morally correct: if they aren't they will be listed as a cult. However, every single religion has blind faith, and that is the most major reason some people don't believe in it. Well, this debate will be biased consider the bible gives way too little proof for whatever it says, and we can't prove it.

-->
@David

I would love to argue this debate, but when it comes right down to it I cannot prove God exists other than by circumstantial evidence. This is by design because the Bible even says in Hebrews 11:6, " And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." So Faith is the catalyst to believing in God and of course, Faith involves trust in the unseen. It's all about Faith.

-->
@Melcharaz

I plan on using three main arguments: the problem of evil, biblical defects, and contradictory properties.

In what way do you want to assert God doesnt exist? Will you disregard scripture? Will you try (again) to counter kalam?

-->
@User_2006

Hello user.

Hello moderator.

-->
@sigmaphil

Interested?