Instigator / Pro
0
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4097
There is proof that the God of the Bible is real.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
SkepticalOne
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1551
rating
9
debates
66.67%
won
Description
As Pro, I must meet two requirements.:
1. Prove God exists.
2. Prove the Bible is true.
Will you accept my challenge? Can you defeat me as Con?
Good luck! :)
Round 1
Pro
#1
As Thomas Aquinas demonstrates, there are proofs of God’s existence. Which is called, “The Five Ways.”
The Five Ways:
1. Motion. Since everything that moves is a series of events, moved by something else. It then logically follows that there must be a First Mover responsible for this cycle. The Mover is God.
2. First Cause. For everything that exists, there is a cause that brought it about. This Universe could not have come into being on its own. There has to have been an original source that caused this mysterious creation.
3. Necessary Being. If matter can be created, then it can be destroyed or cease to exist. Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, this something HAS to be God.
4. Gradation. Everything varies in complexity. If you compare everything, you can find designs so meticulously developed that it therefore stands that whatever is outside the universe is the most complex, God.
5. Design. Since every organism and facet of life has a specific purpose and nothing can be created by chance, there must have been a designer who created everything with a specific goal in mind.
Since I have now demonstrated proof of God, I have fulfilled the first requirement of the Burden of Proof.
Now this leaves us with the question, which God?
If I present the historical accuracy of the Bible, then I win the debate.:
Con
#2
I am excited to be participating in a debate for the first time in many years. I hope my adversary will forgive my rustiness and ...go easy! I suspect not. At any rate, I thank Sir Lancelot (SL) for instigating this debate and look forward to our exchange.
Let us get straight into it, shall we?
There is a significant problem with my opponent’s argumentation here which he implicitly acknowledges ('which God?'): The Five Ways does not make an argument specifically for the Christian Deity. In fact, and this is a huge and common objection to the Five Ways, these arguments can support any god (including non-Christian deities), every god (Divine Committee?), inanimate objects (A Rock), or even abstractions (Grand Unified Theory). In a best-case scenario... assuming the conclusions true - these arguments do not and cannot “prove” the God of the Bible is real.
1. Motion
This argument is self-defeating: Presumably, God would need to move meaning he would be subject to the conditions of the argument. Any exceptions made for God would be applicable to everything. This removes the need for God as a solution.
2. First Cause
This too is self-defeating as it uses the same reasoning as the First Way. If God exists, then he would be subject to the conditions of the argument and, being part of “everything”, would need a cause.
3. Necessary Being
We don’t know matter can be created or destroyed. However, in the history of observation it has not occurred. The First Law of Thermodynamics is built on this. [1] Pro will need to show that matter can be created or destroyed before we need to discuss what/who is necessary for it.
4. Gradation
Pro hasn’t summarized Aquinas’ forth way here. Aquinas’s argument has to do with our supposed need for an absolute ‘measuring stick’ to understand the value of attributes. This is something different and I have questions:
- Does my opponent have an example of a “meticulously developed design” (sans human involvement).
- Are there blueprints?
- How does one determine what is outside of the universe?
5. Design
As someone who does not subscribe to the worldview St. Aquinas did, I do not start with a belief that everything has a specific purpose. This points to a problem with the argument. If one must start with a particular belief for the argument to make sense, it isn’t meant for non-believers.
Conclusions
In summary, each of these arguments has its flaws and I’ve provided enough refutation for reasonable doubt. However, if even one (or all) of these arguments were to withstand my criticisms, it still would not “prove” the God of the Bible. How could an argument advocate for a being it does not mention by name? Pro will need to do more than vaguely motion towards something that could be a god if we squint our eyes just right. The burden is to prove the God of the Bible is real. Thus far, it remains unmet. I turn it back over to SL now anticipating another interesting round.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you, Con!
MotionThis argument is self-defeating: Presumably, God would need to move meaning he would be subject to the conditions of the argument. Any exceptions made for God would be applicable to everything. This removes the need for God as a solution.2. First CauseThis too is self-defeating as it uses the same reasoning as the First Way. If God exists, then he would be subject to the conditions of the argument and, being part of “everything”, would need a cause.3. Necessary BeingWe don’t know matter can be created or destroyed. However, in the history of observation it has not occurred. The First Law of Thermodynamics is built on this. [1] Pro will need to show that matter can be created or destroyed before we need to discuss what/who is necessary for it.4. GradationPro hasn’t summarized Aquinas’ forth way here. Aquinas’s argument has to do with our supposed need for an absolute ‘measuring stick’ to understand the value of attributes. This is something different and I have questions:
- Does my opponent have an example of a “meticulously developed design” (sans human involvement).
- Are there blueprints?
- How does one determine what is outside of the universe?
5. DesignAs someone who does not subscribe to the worldview St. Aquinas did, I do not start with a belief that everything has a specific purpose. This points to a problem with the argument. If one must start with a particular belief for the argument to make sense, it isn’t meant for non-believers.
The God of the Bible is almighty and omnipotent. He is exempt from the Five Ways because he exists independently of creation.
It is true that these arguments can be used to justify the existence of any deity. However, the Bible is currently the only book on Earth that has demonstrated to be accurate, compared to the Quran, The Book of Mormon, and the Talmud.
Con
#4
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot!
The God of the Bible is almighty and omnipotent. He is exempt from the Five Ways because he exists independently of creation.
Pro is attempting to create special rules to exempt god from arguments which explicitly include everything. Something (or someone) that is “independent of creation” would still be included in 'everything'.
It is true that these arguments can be used to justify the existence of any deity. However, the Bible is currently the only book on Earth that has demonstrated to be accurate, compared to the Quran, The Book of Mormon, and the Talmud.
Pro’s concession about the broad advocacy of the 5 ways is damning to his position. If someone claimed, “the evidence can be used to justify anyone being the murderer”, we would (or should) question the validity of the evidence. The same is true of arguments. If they support all sides, they are impotent.
As for the Bible, should we take Sir.Lancelot’s word for the Bible being the only book demonstrated to be accurate? No argument or evidence has been presented to substantiate such a position. I have absolutely nothing against my opponent holding the Bible in high regard, but for the purposes of debate it will need to be established why anyone should take the Bible as anything more than a collection of books written by men long ago.
Round 3
Pro
#5
We can also review the historical accounts of Jesus Christ.
So many people have testified to his existence and divinity and were killed.
Would so many people be willing to go to their deaths for a mere mortal?
It doesn't seem likely.
Con
#6
Thank you for that, Pro!
We can also review the historical accounts of Jesus Christ.
There are no historical records of Jesus so far as this debater is aware. The stories of Jesus in the Bible are not thought by critical scholars to have been written by eye-witnesses. Thus, the Bible is a claim regarding the life of Jesus, and all accounts within its covers represent, at best, stories written decades after his supposed death. Perhaps, Pro was referring to contemporary historians which recorded the life of Jesus? There are none.
So many people have testified to his existence and divinity and were killed. Would so many people be willing to go to their deaths for a mere mortal? It doesn't seem likely.
This claim is probably too vague for us to know what exactly Pro is referring to. Regarding the Bible, the above refutation is still applicable here (the Bible is the claim, not the evidence), but perhaps, he is referring to church traditions of apostles being martyred? Given that there are many (conflicting) church traditions of how the disciples met their end it seems unlikely those traditions reflect historical truths.
Rather than trying to guess what my opponent had in mind here, I will simply point out someone dying for a belief doesn’t make the belief true. I would guess Sir.Lancelot and I can agree the Muslim Extremists who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 were true believers. I also imagine we can agree their convictions do nothing to validate the veracity of their beliefs.
Round 4
Con
#8
From the outset of this debate, we knew the job of my opponent. It was stated clearly and unambiguously in the resolution: “There is proof that the God of the Bible is real”, and the burden was laid out in 2 parts:
• Prove God exists.
• Prove the Bible is true.
To begin, we were given the 5 ways as argumentation for the Biblical god. No mention of the Biblical god occurred. In the second round, Pro conceded the ambiguous nature of these arguments. Advocacy which could argue equally for a rock or THE Rock (Dwayne Johnson) is quite obviously not clear evidence for Yahweh.
But wait -Theres’s more! A bit of special pleading was presented to raise the Biblical god from the masses of potential deities the Ways advocates. It is not clear how omnipotence makes a difference. Presumably, many other gods would also be omnipotent. Secondly, it was asserted, without evidence or argumentation, the Biblical god exists apart from creation. However, physical (or metaphysical) location does not make one distinct from “everything”.
In round 3, it was martyrs which were presented as evidence of the Biblical god. Pro didn’t mention any specifically, so it is hard to know exactly what he had in mind. Ultimately, dying for a belief does not make a belief true. Countless men and women have died for what they believe, some of those beliefs were undoubtedly wrong.
In conclusion, Pro has failed to meet his self-imposed burdens or demonstrate the truth of the resolution. Vote Con!
I sincerely thank Sir.Lancelot for instigating this debate. This is a contentious subject, and Pro has kept it civil throughout. I would be happy to debate him again should he be willing. Thank you!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
I vote Con, here's why:
1. I don't think the Bible is true because there is no true historical testament of Jesus.
2. Ways 1-3 are all universal rules, and so should apply to God. Them not applying to God means they are wrong.
3. Way 4 is disproven because there's no evidence of design.
4. Way 5 is disproven because things don't have a preconceived purpose.
In conclusion, since Pro doesn't prove the Bible or a single reason for God to exist, I have no reason to vote Pro.
Notes for Pro
1. You need to be present in the debate.
2. Maybe look at Kirkeegard or other philosophers who say reason isn't a way you can evaluate God.
Notes for Con
I feel bad because I don't really have any. You did good.
If yall have any questions, feel free to message, comment, or question me!
Destiny determines depth dictating dialogue.
Luminescent liquidations lacking logos.
Indelible independent individiuals introspect ineffable ideas.
Experience expounds exact expressions. Extrovert each example en extrapolation.
Justifiable juxtapostions jubilate judicants
Applicants affirm adjectives adverse and adamant.
I would take it if I were Con though.
The resolution has too high a level of certainty. Plus, I'd be conflicted advocating for something I feel to be the cause of much harm in the world.
Want to debate again?
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4157-there-is-irrefutable-proof-that-the-god-of-the-bible-is-real
Bump
Bump
Hitler loved Thomas Aquinas. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the
most influential theologian in the history of the Catholic Church, argued
that it was morally justifiable for Jews to serve Christians as slaves because,
as the slayers of God, they were bound to "perpetual servitude.
Hitler exploited this legacy of hatred. But while showing continuity
with the past, Nazi anti-Semitism was different from its predecessors.
Here was not merely prejudice, persecution, and invective. Here, for the
first time, was a calculated program of mass murder set forth by the legal
government of Germany-a government unique in all history.
Well, there have always been proofs, regardless of how good they are at doing the job they are supposed to do.
Regardless.
Good luck, Sir.