Instigator / Pro
2
1309
rating
274
debates
40.51%
won
Topic
#4822
Christianity vs Atheism
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
Americandebater24
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
7
1480
rating
17
debates
52.94%
won
Description
I take the position of Christianity. Con takes the position of atheism.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Definitions
God in Christianity is Jesus, who is God in his final form.
Christainity - Religion that follows the teachings of Jesus Christ
Atheism - Lack of belief in God
Arguments
1. The problem of beginning proves God
Ordinary things dont appear out of nothing today, and they never have. There is no proof of that ever happening, and there is no logical explanation on how "nothing" causes something. What caused "nothing" to become "something"? "Nothing" cannot cause a beginning of something. Cause must be "something". If "nothing" could cause something, then we would see something coming from nothing today.
That is, unless we add God to the explanation.
An all powerful being is a good explanation for the beginning of everything.
God can create itself out of nothing. God is an all powerful being. Having all powers includes being able to create itself.
2. The problem of existence proves God
An existence had to have a beginning. Can things exist for no reason? No. However, every reason is also "a thing". Therefore, every reason must have a reason for its existence. That brings us to conclusion that endless number of reasons had to happen to reach where we are today. However, "endless path" doesnt have an end. Therefore, in order to reach the point of today, we had to reach the end of this "endless path". We had to cross an endless path and reach its end - a logical impossibility.
God is a good explanation for beginning. God can cause a beginning by creating itself out of nothing. Having all powers includes having power to create itself out of nothing.
3. The problem of movement proves God
As we have already explained, endless path is impossible to cross. Therefore, our path had to have a beginning or we would never reach where we are today.
Same logic that applies to reasons applies to movement. Only God can cause movement to happen out of nothing. Only God can be the first mover. Every thing that moves was moved by something.
The first mover or the unmoved mover theory says that there was a first thing which moved, but wasnt moved by anything.
4. God's footsteps: The problem of clues proves God
We dont have any clues that God doesnt exist. However, we have many clues that he does indeed exist. Great number of people believing in God, feeling and seeing God's presence in their lives and seeing God - these are all clues. God being the most logical explanation for beginning of everything is a clue of God's existence.
Therefore, going by clues, it is more likely that God exists, since there are clues that he does but there are no clues that he doesnt.
5. The problem of proof proves God
What would be the proof for God? Seeing God? Most people see God's presence in their lives. Many people have even seen God, his kingdom and his angels, and have told others about it.
Therefore, if our senses are real, God exists. If our senses are not real, then nothing exists.
Proof is based on unquestionable values. However, if we accept Bible as the unquestionable value, then we prove God as Bible tells us that God exists.
There is an equal amount of proof that God exists and that you exist. You cannot prove that you exist without accepting the existence of your feelings as unquestionable. You have no reason to believe that your feelings exist. But you believe without reason. That is not any different from believing that God exists. Therefore, if you can believe that you exist and that your feelings exist, you can also believe that God exists. The strength of proof is equal for the existence of God and for the existence of your feelings.
6. Problem of widely accepted truth proves God
If we say that reasonable is that which most people agree upon, then God is reasonable. Most people believe in God. Historically, what most people agree upon is usually seen as reasonable and normal.
7. The problem of atheist principles proves God
Atheist principles cannot be applied universally or in most cases.
Lets say that there is a village where only 4 people live. One person was murdered by someone. Now there are only 3 people in the village. There is no proof of who murdered a person. However, there are 2 people in the village who say that one person did it because they saw him, and they both said the same story. There are no other witnesses or any other proof. Every court will accept the story of those 2 witnesses.
Therefore, when we have the first 12 witnesses of Jesus who tell us same story, that is proof. They risked their lives following a man who promised them nothing on this Earth, who told them that some of them will get killed and some tortured.
These witnesses tell us of miracles performed by Jesus, which is why they followed him into death.
If that is not enough, we have over 1 billion Christians, who all stand as witnesses for the presence of God in their lives.
People all over the world today witness presence of God in their lives and witness the healing power of faith. Many had near death experiences where they witnessed Jesus and angels.
8. God's predictions coming true proves God as Jesus
Jesus made many accurate predictions about the future which prove that he was God.
Jesus said that Christianity will be spread around the entire world.
"And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come."
He said this at the time when Christianity had less than 100 followers.
Jesus also predicted that after Christianity becomes dominant, there will be the decline of Christianity in a way that almost no one will be a Christian anymore. We see today that Christianity is rapidly declining in many countries, and atheism is on the rise.
In USA, there were only 8% of atheists in 1990. Now there is 26% of them. Atheism and Islam grow much faster than Christianity. Therefore, Christianity obviously declined compared to these other religions, after it was superior to them for so long. Those religions will overtake Christianity. In many countries, such as Sweden and USA, the percentage of Christians is dropping. The percentage of Christians in the world has not increased much, while percentage of atheists and muslims increases rapidly. Islam was already predicted to overtake Christianity.
In the same way that Jesus predicted the rise of Christianity, Jesus also predicted its final and total decline, and that people will return to mass adultery, immorality and luxury.
"It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation."
"She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries."
Bible predicts cloning and surgery in Genesis 2.
"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam"
"and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof"
"And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman"
This is basically how surgeries and cloning are done. In order to clone, you need some part of the person you are cloning. However, no one could have known this 2000 years ago.
In order to clone, you need a part of a person or an animal you are cloning. If you didnt have that part, you wouldnt know what to clone.
God would not need a part, of course. However, if he didnt use the part, then Bible wouldnt describe cloning as it is done today.
Bible also provides accurate description of what is an AI.
"saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed."
Now, obviously, this verse talks about an image that can speak, detect, think, and be like it has life. No one 2000 years ago could have known what is that about.
Today we know that AI mostly fits such description. AI is an "image" that speaks, detects, thinks, and acts like it has life and sentience.
Humans will be expected to abandon their opinions in favor of whatever AI suggests. AI is already smarter than most humans. AI will obviously develop to the point where it will be smarter than any human.
Jesus predicted that government will control all trade, and that people will get chip implants.
This verse describes chip implants in humans and government control of trade:
"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name".
The mark is used to buy and sell things. So it is likely a chip. Besides, it says "will get mark in their right hand" not "on their right hand". People already started getting chip implants.
Bible predicted that it will be discovered that Earth floats in space.
Obviously, 2000 years ago, no one knew for sure if Earth is located on top of something or just floating.
Bible made a claim over 2000 years ago that Earth floats in space:
"He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing."
9. The problem of all powerful being proves God
Even if God doesnt exist, he can create himself into existence at any time.
All powerful being can create itself out of nothing.
Having all powers includes being able to create itself.
God had powers before God came into existence.
Being all powerful includes having all powers when existing and when not existing. If all-powers didnt exist, all-powers could create themselves out of nothing and be granted to God or create God. All-powers are not limited by existence.
Conclusion
So far we see many evidence for God and for Christianity. I will present more evidence in next round.
Con
#2
Opening statement: I will start by thanking Pro for creating the Debate. I am sure It will be interesting. First, let us get an understanding of what a God is by definition. according to the definition God is.
the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god#:~:text=the%20Being%20perfect%20in%20power%2C%20wisdom%2C%20and%20goodness%20who%20is%20worshipped%20(as%20in%20Judaism%2C%20Christianity%2C%20Islam%2C%20and%20Hinduism)%20as%20creator%20and%20ruler%20of%20the%20universe
Since a God has to be perfect in three categories
- Power
- Wisdom
- Goodness
If I, as Con can disprove the supposed Christan God's existence or lacking in any of these areas. It should count as sufficient evidence to support Atheism and discredit Christianity.
Argument 1: God does not have the power to prove his own existence scientifically.
According to Christan lore, God is the reason for the Universe. In Colossians 1:16 It says,
"For by[a] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him." Colossians 1:16 ESV - For by him all things were created, in - Bible Gateway
Yet despite This claim. It is a known fact that you cannot prove God scientifically. According to learn religions.com. Scientifically, God Does Not Exist (learnreligions.com)
"This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity. If God existed, there should be concrete evidence of His existence—not faith, but tangible, measurable, consistent evidence that can be predicted and tested using the scientific method. If we fail to find that evidence, then God cannot exist as defined." https://www.learnreligions.com/science-allows-belief-god-does-not-exist-248234#:~:text=This%20is%20basically,exist%20as%20defined.
A god that can supposedly create everything for themselves but cannot prove their existence is a contradiction and supports the notion that God is not as powerful as Christian's claim, much less exist.
Argument 2: God is not wise at all.
According to the Bible.
"God is always wise, it is an integral part of His unchanging nature. And His wisdom is far greater than we could ever comprehend. It is unsearchable! Because He is perfect in wisdom, his ways and his decisions are superior (perfect!) and to be trusted." The Wisdom of God - Understanding the Bible
Yet the Bible also mentions Adam and Eve defying Gods orders and eating from the tree of knowledge.
"God warns him not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, for if one were to eat from it, they would surely die." Adam And Eve In The Bible – The Complete Story Of The First Humans | Mythology Explained
Yet if we follow this logic. This means that God in his infinite wisdom created a tree of knowledge, knew that it was deadly, and then placed said toxic tree within the vicinity of Adam and warns him not to eat it. So, instead of not creating a tree of knowledge or simply placing it in a place no human can reach. God (rather unwisely) creates the very situation he supposedly does not want to happen. This creates an issue for Christan's because it backs them into a corner where they must say that God is not wise as allowing Adam to eat the fruit is a mistake in the first place or admit God did this on purpose which leads to my third argument.
Argument 3: God is not a perfectly good entity.
The Bible claims that God is the only one that is morally good.
“No one is good, except God alone” (Luke 18:19 NIV; see also Psalm 106:1; Psalm 34:8). God Is the Moral Standard (harvest.org)
And Yet God is the same one that will order the murder of entire people.
"The Lord your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, 30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” 31 You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods." Deuteronomy 12:29–31 NASB95 - “When the LORD… | Biblia
This establishes that God of the Christan faith is capable of hate, but he will also order the invading of entire people who he does not like. Would a morally good figure that is perfect in morality not say that killing and invading others is wrong? Afterall, Wrath is a deadly sin according to the Bible. But it does not seem to be so when God does it. Seven deadly sins - Wikipedia Since God is a rule breaker and a sinner according to his own commandments. He cannot be a perfect being of Goodness.
Rebuttals:
Ordinary things dont appear out of nothing today, and they never have. There is no proof of that ever happening, and there is no logical explanation on how "nothing" causes something. What caused "nothing" to become "something"? "Nothing" cannot cause a beginning of something. Cause must be "something". If "nothing" could cause something, then we would see something coming from nothing today.
Atheists don't claim ordinary things came from nothing. Atheists have their own ideas about how things came into existence. I agree with Pro that it's not logical to say something came from nothing, but this does not prove God. Just as you can say we have not seen something come from nothing. The same can be said about God.
An existence had to have a beginning. Can things exist for no reason? No. However, every reason is also "a thing". Therefore, every reason must have a reason for its existence. That brings us to conclusion that endless number of reasons had to happen to reach where we are today. However, "endless path" doesnt have an end. Therefore, in order to reach the point of today, we had to reach the end of this "endless path". We had to cross an endless path and reach its end - a logical impossibility.
I'm not sure what Pro is trying to say here. If something is endless, there is no "end" that is why it's called endless. True, when why don't know why something happened, there are endless possibilities, but that only remains true until we have an answer. We have not "reached the end of this 'endless path'" Life and evolution are still on going.
As we have already explained, endless path is impossible to cross. Therefore, our path had to have a beginning or we would never reach where we are today.
No true, if we were really on and endless path we would still be where we are today. It would only mean that where we are today doesn't matter since our path never stops.
We dont have any clues that God doesnt exist. However, we have many clues that he does indeed exist. Great number of people believing in God, feeling and seeing God's presence in their lives and seeing God - these are all clues. God being the most logical explanation for beginning of everything is a clue of God's existence.
Pro is using a logical fallacy. The pardon of proof is always on the one making the claim. So, its false to say that we have no knowledge if God does not exist because his existence hasn't been confirmed in the first place. Pro's evidence is more Sophistry than fact. The amount of people believing in God only establishes God as a popular idea, not a truth. Seeing God and his presence is hearsay, and God being the most logical explanation is subjective. Logic alone is not evidence for you can have undeniable logic and yet no facts to support it.
There is more that I would love to Rebuttal. but due to character limitations set by Pro. I will conclude here.
Conclusion: The definition of what it takes to be a God is to be prefect in wisdom, goodness, and Power. The Christan God fails in all of these areas as evidence by the Christan Bible and thus, Christianity and their supposed God are not creditable. Atheism makes no claim other than lacking a belief in an unproven God. Atheism is more coherent and logical than Christianity. The Pro would also do well to actually list sources like I have because so far, their evidence is nothing more than logical fallacy's, unproven hearsays', and sophistry.
Vote Con.
Round 2
Pro
#3
10. The problem of logic proves God
Human logic can only be one of these 3:
1) Circular
2) Based on unquestionable values
3) Based on infinite reasons
1) is a logical fallacy of circular reasoning
2) is based on no reason
3) is based on endless reasons and impossible to prove or demonstrate.
Therefore, all human logic is flawed. However, when accepting this human logic, you end up proving God.
1) God exists because God created himself.
2) God's existence is unquestionable.
3) God exists for infinite number of reasons: God1, God2, God3...
11. The problem of science proves God
Any explanation for the existence of the world given by science does not disprove God, since God can do anything, even lead scientists to wrong conclusions.
For example, scientists have no proof on how old is the universe. They can merely guess based on its assumed movement in the past. However, God can easily start movement at any point and position and make it seem like movement existed before the given position when in fact, it hasnt. God can also speed up movement, then slow it down. Therefore, guessing the age of the universe by its current movement speed and current position is incorrect, since we dont know the starting position or speed.
Science doesnt have a way of meassuring age of the Earth when it doesnt know the starting point of Earth.
12. The problem of laws of the Universe proves God
What created laws of the Universe? The most logical explanation is God, since God is all powerful and he can do that.
13. Christian perfect moral law proves Christian God
Christian moral law is perfect. It is complete, simple and easy to learn moral law to the point where it only could have been created by God.
Moral law of Christianity is made up of the entire Bible, but it is wonderfully summed up in very short version which is made of "8 Commandments + Charity + Prayer" in The New Testament.
Christian moral law is easy for anyone to learn, even for a 5 year old child. Everyone accepting Christian moral law, even if only accepting some parts of it, benefits from that.
Christian morality is based upon life, on protecting the life and increasing prayer. It is really perfect for any society, because with protection of life, society prospers the most.
The quality of a moral law is not just in how good it is in theory, but if it would be accepted by people in practice.
Christian morality is the most accepted morality in the world. Even young kids easily learn 10 commandments, prayer, charity, forgiveness and love.
The law is simple, effective and never-changing. It is nonsense to say that people 2000 years ago were smarter than people today. People today have much more education. We see that people today have many problems when trying to create laws. They struggle a lot. Some laws have multiple pages. Many have to be changed all the time.
Christian law is so perfect that it never had to be changed. It is so simple that a 5 year old can learn it. It is perfect moral law. No person was ever able to come up with better moral law.
Christians are famous for their charities, for their opposition to abortions, for valuing marriage and family unit.
If there is a good reason to accept the existence of God, then God should be accepted. Accepting the existence of God increases morality. Increasing morality is a good reason to accept the existence of God. Therefore, God should be accepted.
14. The problem of evil in atheism
Atheism cannot explain why something is evil. However, atheists have one more problem. In Christianity, the fear of God's punishment makes people behave better. They think God is always watching.
People behave better when they think that someone is watching.
In atheism, nobody watches and there is no punishment. So people who would be prevented from doing crime only by the idea of God, are not prevented by anything in atheist society.
15. The tragedy of the atheist world
In atheism, good people die and disappear. They suffer for the entire life, only to die and disappear. If you believe in reincarnation, then good people keep getting born again, only to suffer again and die again. Therefore, God is needed for good people to be rewarded.
16. The problem of birth rates and abortions
Atheism cannot possibly explain why giving birth to a child is a good thing. By all atheist standards, life is suffering. Why suffer more by having to take care of children? Children are expensive. You will save more money by not having children. Plus, you will spare your children of all suffering in this world if you dont give birth to them. Christians know that giving birth to children is good, since God will be praised more and since God commanded people to multiply.
Most atheists support abortions, which just further proves that atheism results in the destruction of life.
17. God is needed for justice proves that God exists
God is needed for good people to be rewarded. Without God, good people die and disappear. They suffer for the entire life, only to die and disappear. If you believe in reincarnation, then good people keep getting born again, only to suffer again and die again.
18. God explains the existence of everything
Lack of God doesnt explain the existence of everything. Without God, we have no explanation. With God, we have the explanation. This means that God probably exists.
19. Pascal's wager proves that atheism is less reasonable
If Christians are right, most atheists go to hell. If atheists are right, both Christians and atheists will simply stop existing after they die.
There are only these 3 options:
1. Christians end up better than atheists in the afterlife.
2. Christians end up the same as atheists in the afterlife.
3. Christians end up worse than atheists in the afterlife.
Option 3 is the least likely.
The option 3) is the only argument against Pascal's wager.
If option 3) is proven less likely than option 1), then it logically follows that Christians are more likely to have a happy afterlife.
But how likely is the option 3)?
Is option 3) more likely than option 1) or equally likely as option 3)?
I would say not even close. First, if there was a God who rewarded atheists and punished Christians, such God would have to be immoral since most of Christians have similar or better morality than what atheists have. Therefore, the only way to argue against Pascal's Wager is to assume that immoral God is just as likely as moral God, and to assume that such immoral God for some reason prefers atheists over Christians. Such God would also need to be unreasonable God, since its unreasonable to prefer atheists when there was no proof or even a hint given during our lifetime that atheism is the correct path.
Second, the greatest religions on Earth are against atheism. So the God who prefers atheists for some reason created religions that are implying how atheism is wrong. These religions are all built on morality. Therefore, God who prefers atheists would punish those who follow morality.
So any God who prefers atheism would have to be immoral and unreasonable.
Option 1) is more likely than option 3), since moral and reasonable God is more likely than immoral and unreasonable God who prefers atheism.
Can we say that unreasonable God is as likely as reasonable God? Because our world has consistent laws which imply that if it is created by God, it is created by reasonable God.
If world has a creator, such creator must be reasonable, since world is reasonable. Therefore, reasonable creator would create a reasonable world. Unreasonable creator would not create a reasonable world. Therefore, either the world has no creator, or it has a reasonable creator. It cannot have an unreasonable creator.
If God is reasonable, he would not reward atheists. There is no logical reason to think atheism is a correct path. There is no logical reason for reasonable God to reward those who thought something for no logical reason. Therefore, there is no logical reason for reasonable God to reward atheists.
Therefore, in order for atheism to have a happy ending, there would need to be an immoral God who prefers atheists, doesnt mind that atheists dont believe in him for no reason, doesnt mind that atheists judge him and hate him, plus who hates Christians.
Moral God would, by logic, reward moral people.
However, immoral God would not, by logic, reward immoral people. Immoral God could punish everyone, since his immorality lets him do that.
Therefore, atheists must hope that immoral God exists who is good to immoral people. They cannot just hope for any immoral God, but specifically for the one who rewards evil people.
20. Atheism cannot be proven
As pointed before, atheism cannot be proven. However, Christianity can be proven to be more likely than atheism, which we see that it is since we have many clues of Christian God existing. If we go by proof, Christian God has the largest number of witnesses for his presence. Atheism cannot even have a single witness, since no one can disprove God by not seeing or not feeling him, as saying "i do not see you" does not lead to conclusion "you dont exist". However, "I see God", "I feel God's presence in my life" does lead to conclusion of God most likely existing.
There is no convincing empirical evidence for atheism.
Atheism is just a lack of belief in all Gods, where Christianity is a belief in a specific God. Therefore, if atheism is to be more reasonable, it must prove that no Gods exist. Not just Christian God, but literally all Gods known and unknown must be proven false for atheism to be reasonable.
21. Atheist needs to prove his lack of belief
Atheism lacks a belief in any God. Lack of belief needs to be justified by reason. So in order to justify its lack of belief in God, atheism must prove that no Gods exist. Atheism must explain to us why the lack of belief in God is reasonable.
Conclusion
We see many advantages for Christianity. Not any for atheism. Every proof speaks for Christianity, especially morality.
Con
#4
Opening statement: Pro has no addressed any of the points I have made and has continued to make assertions with no evidence beyond their own personal opinion. Here is some examples of theses opinion-based assertions.
Rebuttals:
10. The problem of logic proves GodHuman logic can only be one of these 3:1) Circular2) Based on unquestionable values3) Based on infinite reasons1) is a logical fallacy of circular reasoning2) is based on no reason3) is based on endless reasons and impossible to prove or demonstrate.Therefore, all human logic is flawed. However, when accepting this human logic, you end up proving God.1) God exists because God created himself.2) God's existence is unquestionable.3) God exists for infinite number of reasons: God1, God2, God3...
Pro needs to educate themselves on how logic works. Because in reality. Most of the logic we used today is based on Greek philosophy. Particularly from Socrates the Teacher of Plato Socrates - Wikipedia Plato the teacher of Aristotle Plato - Wikipedia and Aristotle himself Aristotle - Wikipedia All three men create what we today call modern logic. It was not based anything that Pro lists. Socrates taught Critical thinking by asking and answering questions. Socratic method - Wikipedia Plato, among other things, taught that knowledge is known a birth and just recalled Platonic epistemology - Wikipedia and Aristotle is credited f0r discovering logic itself Term logic - Wikipedia
Logic also does not prove God since you can have perfect logic and still lack fact. "Marvin is a vampire. All vampires are rich. Marvin is a Rich vampire." Do vampires exist? No, but your logic cannot be denied regardless of if they are real. Therefore, logic does not prove existence.
11. The problem of science proves GodAny explanation for the existence of the world given by science does not disprove God, since God can do anything, even lead scientists to wrong conclusions.For example, scientists have no proof on how old is the universe. They can merely guess based on its assumed movement in the past. However, God can easily start movement at any point and position and make it seem like movement existed before the given position when in fact, it hasnt. God can also speed up movement, then slow it down. Therefore, guessing the age of the universe by its current movement speed and current position is incorrect, since we dont know the starting position or speed. Science doesnt have a way of meassuring age of the Earth when it doesnt know the starting point of Earth.
Pro clearly did not read the sources I provided. In round 1: under argument 1: I provided an article that explained that science disproves God by pointing out that if there is a God there should be concrete evidence and not faith. pro not only ignored this but now fictitiously asserts that science cannot disprove God and claims that scientists have no proof of how old the universe is which is false. Scientists may not know for a fact how old the Universe is, but they are not simply guessing and have methods to back up their theories. How old is the universe? | New Scientist
13. Christian perfect moral law proves Christian GodChristian moral law is perfect. It is complete, simple and easy to learn moral law to the point where it only could have been created by God.Moral law of Christianity is made up of the entire Bible, but it is wonderfully summed up in very short version which is made of "8 Commandments + Charity + Prayer" in The New Testament.Christian moral law is easy for anyone to learn, even for a 5 year old child. Everyone accepting Christian moral law, even if only accepting some parts of it, benefits from that.Christian morality is based upon life, on protecting the life and increasing prayer. It is really perfect for any society, because with protection of life, society prospers the most.The quality of a moral law is not just in how good it is in theory, but if it would be accepted by people in practice.Christian morality is the most accepted morality in the world. Even young kids easily learn 10 commandments, prayer, charity, forgiveness and love.The law is simple, effective and never-changing. It is nonsense to say that people 2000 years ago were smarter than people today. People today have much more education. We see that people today have many problems when trying to create laws. They struggle a lot. Some laws have multiple pages. Many have to be changed all the time.Christian law is so perfect that it never had to be changed. It is so simple that a 5 year old can learn it. It is perfect moral law. No person was ever able to come up with better moral law.Christians are famous for their charities, for their opposition to abortions, for valuing marriage and family unit.If there is a good reason to accept the existence of God, then God should be accepted. Accepting the existence of God increases morality. Increasing morality is a good reason to accept the existence of God. Therefore, God should be accepted.
I am glad the pro claims that "Moral law of Christianity is made up of the entire Bible, but it is wonderfully summed up in very short version which is made of "8 Commandments + Charity + Prayer" in The New Testament." Because if you remember, I gave an example back in round 1 argument 3. That God tells his followers to invade and destroy an entire people. This would include their women and children as well. Pro claims that Christan moral law is perfect, and it proves God. The pro is admitting that God is a genocidal murderer and war monger as he not only does not deny the scripture that I quoted but affirms it by saying that Christan morality is based on the very bible that testifies God commanding his believers to kill an entire culture. I don't know about Pro, but I don't consider genocide to be a moral act of Goodness under any means.
14. The problem of evil in atheismAtheism cannot explain why something is evil. However, atheists have one more problem. In Christianity, the fear of God's punishment makes people behave better. They think God is always watching.People behave better when they think that someone is watching.In atheism, nobody watches and there is no punishment. So people who would be prevented from doing crime only by the idea of God, are not prevented by anything in atheist society.
Atheism is not a moral doctrine. It does not need to explain evil since Atheism requires one to ask their own questions about it. Making someone behave better out of fear is bullying and oppression. Not moral goodness. Someone who is immoral will still be immoral at the end of the day even if they are too afraid to act on it. This fact makes Pro's argument silly and contradictory since they earlier argued that Christan morality was perfect.
19. Pascal's wager proves that atheism is less reasonableIf Christians are right, most atheists go to hell. If atheists are right, both Christians and atheists will simply stop existing after they die.There are only these 3 options:1. Christians end up better than atheists in the afterlife.2. Christians end up the same as atheists in the afterlife.3. Christians end up worse than atheists in the afterlife.
Not true. If Christan's are right than some atheists might go to hell deepening on the version of Christianity, we are talking about. But for Atheists, the lack of a Gd does not mean we stop existing when we die. Since atheism is not a belief or moral doctrine. It says nothing for what happens when we die. Which allows anyone to come up with their own idea of what happens, and they are all valid. That seems like a lot more reasonable than telling everyone they go to heaven or hell depending on how they live.
20. Atheism cannot be provenAs pointed before, atheism cannot be proven. However, Christianity can be proven to be more likely than atheism, which we see that it is since we have many clues of Christian God existing. If we go by proof, Christian God has the largest number of witnesses for his presence. Atheism cannot even have a single witness, since no one can disprove God by not seeing or not feeling him, as saying "i do not see you" does not lead to conclusion "you dont exist". However, "I see God", "I feel God's presence in my life" does lead to conclusion of God most likely existing.
Atheism is not a belief. It is an ideology founded on the lack of belief on the assertion that God is real. Just as a murder is not expected to prove they are not guilty. Atheism dos does not have to prove its lack of belief in God correct. Christians have to prove their God claims are true to say that atheism is wrong. Pro is again relying on hearsay. If a Million people say the moon is blue cheese with no proof, does the Moon become blue chasse? No, because you cannot rely on hearsay alone no matter how many people might claim its true.
Conclusion: Pro has demonstrated a lack of understanding logic, has provided no sources, and has addressed no points made by argument. I have proven that the Christan God lacks all requirements to be a true God by definition. Christianity has proven itself to be unreliable as the Pro claims that Christianity is morally perfect despite the Bible which pro claims is the basis on their morality saying otherwise. Atheism, however, only lacks belief in God. It does not install fear, it does not conduct murder. And above all, takes no issue on how you live your life or your opinions on Morality. That makes it both morally and logically superior to Christianity who see no problem with murder and punishment.
Vote Con.
Round 3
Pro
#5
As proven multiple times, atheists use different standard for proving God and for proving other things. They use special pleading. Hence, their standards are inconsistent.
As explained, most people have observed God and his presence in their lives. So if observable=reasonable, then God=reasonable. Plus, since you cannot observe that God doesnt exist, it is unreasonable to have a lack of belief in God, especially with most people observing God's influence in their lives.
Proof is by definition something that makes every other option false. Therefore, as long as the option "God could have done it" remains possible, there is no proof. Therefore, you cannot believe in anything with certainty.
Reasonable means it requires a reason.
22. The problem of purpose proves God
God is needed for there to be a purpose in the world. World without God is just a place of suffering and death. It has no any purpose if there is no God. Everything becomes meaningless. Birth, life and death become pointless. There is no answer to why we exist if there is no God.
23. The problem of evil proves God
All people are evil.
Good God would create evil people to punish them. If God didnt create evil people, evil people wouldnt get punished. There would be no justice. God is necessary to punish evil.
When given these two options:
1. Dont create evil and therefore, dont punish evil
2. Create evil and punish evil
We see that in option 1, evil doesnt get punished. Good by definition includes punishing evil. Therefore, creating evil to punish it is the proper way to be all good.
Society punishes a criminal even when its obvious that he is not at fault for being a criminal, even when its obvious that society made him criminal.
Evil should be punished, even if evil is not at fault for being evil. Good God would punish evil. You cannot punish evil if evil doesnt exist. That is an undeniable fact. The only alternative is not to punish evil. Evil, by not existing, cannot be punished. Your argument is to allow non-existence to evil people and spare them of any real punishment. That means to reward evil by giving it peace in non-existence. Do rapists deserve peace? Only God is good. God has greater knowledge than you. So God knows better about whats right. You cannot provide a reason why evil should not be punished. Most people prefer to punish evil. You too would like to punish evil. Its just that in debates like this, people like to fake goodness and make standards which they themselves would never uphold in any other scenario.
Bible considers all humans evil. Evil people deserve punishment. We cant say that evil should go unpunished. We all agree that evil person needs to be punished even if its not his fault for being evil. Most people are evil due to abusive environment. However, no one will abolish prisons if society makes person evil. Evil person still goes to prison. Same works with God. There is no excuse to let evil have it easy by non-existing. According to our own standards, it doesnt matter if person has no choice. Evil is meant to suffer. Good gets treated good. Evil gets treated badly. This society wouldnt have it other way. It is God's right to do that which is right. How many times have you heard "I hope you burn in hell"? These people want for evil ones to suffer, not just cease to exist. What they dont realize is that they too are evil and are basically condemning themselves. Blaming God for that which you do is no good. God gives rewards to the best people. Even best people are evil. Thats why even best people experience suffering on Earth. Since best people are much less evil than others, they get heaven.
Some babies masturbate in the womb. Babies are atheists. So not so innocent anymore. Babies would grow to be evil people, so thats just preemptive punishment. You dont get heaven just because you didnt get a chance to do more crime. As I said, all people are psychopaths who kill and torture each other. They break the speed limit. They pollute nature. They hurt each other. They are liars, abortionists. They insult others. They beat others. These people deserve nothing but hell. Thats where they will go.
You only have these two options:
1. Evil people arent at fault for evil which they do
2. Evil people are at fault for evil which they do
In case of 1, your society would still punish evil people. Your society punishes evil people even when its the society who made those people evil. So an appeal to society's moral standard doesnt work. You dont even bother to prove if evil people are at fault for being evil. Life itself is punishment for many children. Your society creates animals only to kill them. It is justified to create evil for the purpose of punishing it.
In both the case of 1 and 2, God is justified in creating and punishing evil people.
It is justified for society to make a child evil and then punish an evil child. Thats what your society often does.
Creating evil to punish it is just as good as doing good.
God decides what is good and what is evil. God decided that it is good that God creates evil people and punishes them.
The existence of evil and its punishment require God. If there is no God, evil wont be punished.
Conclusion
We have seen that atheism is not only unreasonable, but harmful. Atheists have no proof for their belief in no God. All the reasons that I provided together prove that it is more reasonable to be a Christian than an atheist. Predictions made by the Bible came true. Bible created the most perfect moral system. God is logical explanation for the beginning of the world. All powerful being has to exist and can exist by its very definition.
Con
#6
As proven multiple times, atheists use different standard for proving God and for proving other things. They use special pleading. Hence, their standards are inconsistent. As explained, most people have observed God and his presence in their lives. So if observable=reasonable, then God=reasonable. Plus, since you cannot observe that God doesnt exist, it is unreasonable to have a lack of belief in God, especially with most people observing God's influence in their lives.
At no point in time have I used "Special pleading" to prove my stance. I sourced everything I said. Many of which come from the Bible itself. Pro is at this point lying as they have not used one source during this entire debate but claim that my standards are inconsistent.
Proof is by definition something that makes every other option false. Therefore, as long as the option "God could have done it" remains possible, there is no proof. Therefore, you cannot believe in anything with certainty.Reasonable means it requires a reason.
The definition of proof is actually, " the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning." Proof Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Proof only establishes validity, it does not make every other option false. A fact is what makes everything else false. Such as it's a fact you cannot prove God based on hearsay alone.
All people are evil.Good God would create evil people to punish them. If God didnt create evil people, evil people wouldnt get punished. There would be no justice. God is necessary to punish evil.
What? Punishing someone for behavior you literally created them to do sounds pretty evil to me. Pro also makes a fictious statement since they provide no proof that all people are evil.
When given these two options:1. Dont create evil and therefore, dont punish evil2. Create evil and punish evilWe see that in option 1, evil doesnt get punished. Good by definition includes punishing evil. Therefore, creating evil to punish it is the proper way to be all good
The definition of good does not mean punish people. Being good by definition is subjective since it means, "of a favorable character or tendency." Good Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster What it means to be of favorable character depends on the society, people we associate with, and the legal system we are under. For example, the characteristics of a typical American is seen as a good thing in America but in places like Japan it is seen as disrespectful.
Bible considers all humans evil. Evil people deserve punishment. We cant say that evil should go unpunished. We all agree that evil person needs to be punished even if its not his fault for being evil. Most people are evil due to abusive environment. However, no one will abolish prisons if society makes person evil. Evil person still goes to prison. Same works with God.
You're making a lot of assumptions with no facts. What you are arguing on is based on moral absolutism. Moral absolutism - Wikipedia. In that Framework what Pro is saying, though barbaric and lacking facts. Does align with that way of thinking. However, the there is also the opposite position called Moral subjectivism. Ethical subjectivism - Wikipedia Which rejects that anything in morality is absolute. Pro is wrong in claiming we all agree that evil people need to be punished. We do not universally agree with what is good or evil, much less weather you should be punished for it. Also, Pro said that All humans are evil because God made us evil. Now he is saying that most are made evil due to bad environments. So, which is it, are people evil because its Gods fault or due to our environments?
Some babies masturbate in the womb. Babies are atheists. So not so innocent anymore. Babies would grow to be evil people, so that's just preemptive punishment. You don't get heaven just because you didn't get a chance to do more crime. As I said, all people are psychopaths who kill and torture each other. They break the speed limit. They pollute nature. They hurt each other. They are liars, abortionists. They insult others. They beat others. These people deserve nothing but hell. Thats where they will go.
Pro... you cannot be serious. Your claiming children before they are even born are evil and if not evil than they will later on and deserve to be in Hell. This is not only not supported by anything but your own delusions. But the fact you even claim this in the first place is simply sick.
Conclusion: Here is the summery of the points I made.
- The Christian God fails to meet the standards of the definition of a true God as he is not perfect in power, Wisdom, or goodness. The Bible details his issues in these areas.
- Christianity is morally and logically inferior to Atheism because Christianity has no qualms with geocoding other people if their God says so. Atheism on the other hand does not condemn anyone nor does it dictate one's own morality and treats all viewpoints as equal so long as they lack the belief in a God.
- God is a sinner since he violates his own rules of sin by indulging in wrathful actions such as ordering an entire people for committing actions he supposedly hates.
- Pro has listed no sources for their arguments, addressed no points made by me as Con, and false statements. Since Pro can produce no evidence or refute Con's than he has already lost the debate.
- God is not proven in science since there needs to be concreate proof that he exists. We do not have this, instead Christians. have faith. Which does not prove anything in both the practical world we live in nor in science.
Thanks for reading and I thank Pro for creating this debate.
Vote Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro provided no sources to any claims at all, just loosely quoting the bible. Pro also refused to rebut any arguments put forward by Con, instead deciding to Gish Gallop into more unsourced opinions. They also tended to misrepresent atheism in their arguments, like with the problem of existence as atheism is not universally agreed upon by atheists. Then as the debate went on the arguments from Pro became weaker and weirder, like Pascal Wager which is pretty agreed upon by many theologians and philosophers to be outdated and far too simple in its possibilities and when Pro called unborn and recently born children evil and deserving of punishment, with an extremely weak and insufficient explanation, which weakened Christianity’s case and would’ve been better to not mention the Round 3 arguments.
Con actually provided sources, so takes that point. Con also rebutted Pros claims, and Pro made no quarrels with any of these rebuttals so I can only assume they either ignored them or conceded. Whilst Cons rebuttals were not always as strong, considering some weak points, as possible, such as the pascal wager rebuttal which only bounced back half of what was necessary. But Con actually attempted rebuttal, often with evidence to back it up and did a decent job at explaining the atheist position, when Con misrepresented it.
For these reasons Con takes better argument, for actually debating with rebuttals to a decent standard, whilst Pro didn’t rebut or really engage in a debate, instead choosing to just go on a rant about whatever they could think of, no matter the arguments absurdity.
Con provided sources to their argument, Pro didn’t only relying on quotes, which at most had the book from the bible but often were completely unsourced.
Conduct and legibility were fine from both sides so that’s equal.
The arguments are all submitted. Feel free to vote.
The arguments are all submitted. Feel free to vote.
Better, more reasonable, more moral, more believable.
Is this a debate on which is better? Or which is more rational and believable? Or which is more moral? It doesn’t give much of a description
Is there some other position that you want to take?
Christianity vs ???
Or do you want a specific definition of atheism?
" Con takes the position of atheism."
But what if con doesn't believe in atheism?
Would that make con a bad atheist, or a skeptical atheist?
Is a skeptical atheist someone who seeks proof of the non existence of a deity,and then doesn't accept the proof?