Instigator / Pro
2
1500
rating
33
debates
60.61%
won
Topic
#6099
There is some evidence that Christian God is real
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
2
0
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
TheGreatSunGod
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1561
rating
205
debates
54.63%
won
Description
Evidence definition:
Information which in some cases leads people to conclusion that something is real
Upon accepting, Con agrees to this definition and must use it in whole debate. If Con does not agree to this definition, he loses the debate.
Round 1
Pro
#1
I.
There is some evidence that Christian God is real
As mentioned in description, evidence is defined as:
Information which in some cases leads people to conclusion that something is real
So full resolution is:
There is some information which in some cases leads people to conclusion that (something is real) that Christian God is real.
"People is any plurality of persons considered as a whole."
"People is normally used as the plural of person, instead of 'persons'. "
So for example, 10 persons are people by tautology.
So people simply means more than 1 person.
"Most of the time, people is the correct word to choose as a plural for person" - this is from dictionary explaining why "people" should be used instead of "persons" as plural for "person".
Thus, any amount of persons is enough here to satisfy the definition, because any amount of persons counts as people, as definition of people is plural of persons, plural being defined as more than 1.
II.
Christianity has billions of followers who believe that Christian God is real, thus the information they gained about Christian God lead them to conclusion that Christian God is real.
III.
There are also documented miracles of Christian prayers.
In the book "61 minutes to miracle", there was a case where baby was born without a heart beat. Usually, after only 10 minutes without a heart beat, death or brain damage is certain. However, in this case, parents of a baby prayed for whole hour, never losing hope and constantly asking Christian God for help. After 1 hour without a heart beat, baby's heart started beating. Baby was alive after being dead for an hour, and after that baby grew up into a healthy person. This is scientifically impossible, and thus counts as miracle.
"In 2014, medical experts and theological advisors to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints unanimously approved the miracle. "
This information leads many people to conclusion that Christian God is real, including the parents of a baby who also count as people.
IV.
Historical information also matters. We know that Apostles risked their lives to spread Jesus's message. Many were brutally tortured and killed for it. People dont usually agree to be killed and tortured for a lie, and Jesus's apostles would knew if it was a lie or not because they were claiming to have seen those miracles with their own eyes and that they saw Jesus ressurect and they talked with Jesus after his ressurection. In simple terms, they wouldnt make something up and then agree to die and get tortured over something they made up.
"Reports and legends abound, and they are not always reliable, but it is safe to say that the apostles went far and wide as heralds of the message of the risen Christ. An early legend says they cast lots and divided up the world to determine who would go where so all could hear about Jesus. They suffered greatly for their faith and, in most cases, met violent deaths because of their bold witness and faith in Christ."
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/vocabulary/persons-people-peoples/
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/person
https://blessedisshe.net/blogs/blog/61-minutes-miracle?srsltid=AfmBOootODtWbofHrl8Hu1mu6jN3KqH5oaDv0jqLh0dFZsircDNrEY-S
https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/whatever-happened-to-the-twelve-apostles-11629558.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country
Con
#2
Evidence definition:
Information which in some cases leads people to conclusion that something is real.
This is what evidence is.
But according to information experts and evidence analysts, it can only be considered evidence if it belongs to one of these four categories, as there are only four types of evidence.:
- Real evidence. (Think archeology, fossil record. Something tangible that holds significant weight.)
- Demonstrative evidence. (Videos, maps, reconstructions.)
- Documentary evidence.
- Testimonial evidence.
Now the trick in determining whether information is evidence is through figuring out two things.:
Which category does the information belong to, and is the information factually admissible or inadmissible?
What determines the latter is if the information is sufficient enough to be deemed reliable. If the information is insufficient, then it is declared inadmissible. Which makes it non-evidence.
Rebuttals
Christianity has billions of followers who believe that Christian God is real, thus the information they gained about Christian God lead them to conclusion that Christian God is real.
What information? How can we verify it?
What category does this information belong to and what form does it take? Is this something can be depended on.
There is a quote that identifies ignorance as the root cause of religion.:
"Religion is regarded by the ignorant as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
Ignorance means lack of information.
There are also documented miracles of Christian prayers.In the book "61 minutes to miracle", there was a case where baby was born without a heart beat. Usually, after only 10 minutes without a heart beat, death or brain damage is certain. However, in this case, parents of a baby prayed for whole hour, never losing hope and constantly asking Christian God for help. After 1 hour without a heart beat, baby's heart started beating. Baby was alive after being dead for an hour, and after that baby grew up into a healthy person. This is scientifically impossible, and thus counts as miracle."In 2014, medical experts and theological advisors to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints unanimously approved the miracle. "This information leads many people to conclusion that Christian God is real, including the parents of a baby who also count as people.
This book was written by the author Bonnie L Engstrom, who is a Catholic author writing to a Christian demographic.
There have been no demonstrations that the book or the 'miracle' has successfully converted non-christians to christians, as the people who read the book or encountered the miracle were already christian. It is highly likely that if there were any non-believers who encountered the miracle or read the book, they wouldn't have been swayed either way. Thus the 'information' did not convince anyone of anything they didn't already believe.
The other problem is if a situation occurred that most perceive as scientifically impossible. There was a subtle detail that doctors missed, that cannot be explained by the limitations of current medical research. And if doctors missed it, that means there is information that is lacking. And when there is a lack of information, people can make all kinds of assumptions to fill in the gaps.
Historical information also matters. We know that Apostles risked their lives to spread Jesus's message. Many were brutally tortured and killed for it. People dont usually agree to be killed and tortured for a lie, and Jesus's apostles would knew if it was a lie or not because they were claiming to have seen those miracles with their own eyes and that they saw Jesus ressurect and they talked with Jesus after his ressurection. In simple terms, they wouldnt make something up and then agree to die and get tortured over something they made up."Reports and legends abound, and they are not always reliable, but it is safe to say that the apostles went far and wide as heralds of the message of the risen Christ. An early legend says they cast lots and divided up the world to determine who would go where so all could hear about Jesus. They suffered greatly for their faith and, in most cases, met violent deaths because of their bold witness and faith in Christ."
Round 2
Pro
#3
But according to information experts and evidence analysts, it can only be considered evidence if it belongs to one of these four categories, as there are only four types of evidence
My opponent is trying to change definition of evidence, and per rules in description, he loses debate:
"Upon accepting, Con agrees to this definition and must use it in whole debate. If Con does not agree to this definition, he loses the debate."
So basically, since he based his whole case on different definition than the one he agreed to, he loses.
What information? How can we verify it?
The debate doesnt even require me to prove what information, it just requires me to prove that there is some information. But the source already said that many Christians became Christians because of their parents, who obviously provided them some information about Christian God which lead them to conclusion that Christian God exists. In fact, the mere conclusion that Christian God (as described in Bible) exists requires by tautology some information about that Christian God.
There is a quote that identifies ignorance as the root cause of religion
Sadly, random quotes dont mean anything in debate. But such quote is false, as the very conclusion of Christian God being real requires some information, at least about Christian God himself.
There have been no demonstrations that the book or the 'miracle' has successfully converted non-christians to christians
This debate isnt about converting non-Christians to Christians, but given that Christians are the largest religious group, its obvious that it has some information which leads people to convert to it. Christians started at only few dozen people, and now there is over 2 billion of them.
The source already clearly mentioned that this miracle further led parents to conclusion that Christian God exists. The argument here isnt that only one information leads to such given conclusion. That would be strawman. Multiple different information can lead to same conclusion independently.
And if doctors missed it, that means there is information that is lacking
This is both strawman and unproved. Information doesnt stop being information even if some other information is lacking.
Information definition:
"knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction"
Another definition:
"the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence"
So it doesnt mean all knowledge. You dont need all knowledge in the universe to be led to conclusion.
If admissible, this would count as testimonial evidence. But Pro's own source concedes that the reports and legends are unreliable, making the information factually inadmissible. Now about the existence of the apostles, is there any way to verify or record their existence historically?
The source says that not all legends are reliable, but it says that all available documents point to the fact that apostles did indeed suffer a lot. Their willing collective suffering and sacrifice is one of the most convincing information about Christianity, and many people convert to Christianity after learning information such as these.
My opponent didnt even challenge the miracle argument which led child's parents to conclusion, didnt challenge that people do become Christians because of information they receive from others, and most importantly, the historical argument wasnt challenged. Miracles, apostles suffering and the spread of Christianity are all arguments which are used to argue for existence of Christian God, thus used to argue for such conclusion, so they by tautology lead someone to conclusion that Christian God exists, as proved by sources below where multiple persons are convinced by historical argument alone.
"To me, the resurrection of Christ is the fundamental theorem of Christianity"
https://faculty.som.yale.edu/jameschoi/whychrist/
"I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable"
https://unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/
"Because life makes no sense to me apart from Christ. Nor does it have any purpose.
Because I’ve never seen the Gospel narratives refuted successfully. Every critique that’s sought to debunk them throughout the years has been discounted under careful scrutiny and scholarship. The Gospels have stood the test of time.
Because I’ve never seen the resurrection of Jesus refuted successfully. Upon careful study of all the historical data, it actually takes more faith to deny His resurrection than to believe it occurred.
Because it makes no sense to me that Jesus of Nazareth isn’t who He said He was – the Messiah, the Son of the living God. No human being has had nearly the kind of effect on world history as Jesus has (e.g., I’m writing this post in 2012 – what does “2012” mean?). No serious historian denies that Jesus of Nazareth existed (there is more historical attestation for His existence than there is to Julius Caesar and many other ancient figures).
Because Jesus is the most compelling, intriguing, awe-inspiring, and amazing person I know of who is worthy of the greatest admiration, obedience, love, and (uniquely) worship. To my mind, truth, justice, and beauty are all grounded in Him, and His story (as told in the Gospels) trumps every other story known to humanity.
In my experience and observation at least, Jesus transforms people’s lives greater than anything else on the face of the Earth.
Because there is no rational explanation for some of the prayers that I (and others I know) have seen answered “in Jesus’ name"
https://hhjonline.com/reasons-why-i-am-a-christian/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/15urep7/what_are_the_best_arguments_for_christianity/?rdt=51637
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information
Con
#4
My opponent is trying to change definition of evidence, and per rules in description, he loses debate:
Pro's definition remains unchanged by me. I accepted it, as it is.
It just so happens that I mentioned that Pro's definition can only manifest in four ways.
Four different versions that have a criteria of two stipulations.
- Does it meet any of the four forms?
- Is it factually admissible or inadmissible?
Pro had the burden of proof to show which category of evidence his samples of information fell under. He didn't tell us, thus he failed his first half of the burden of proof.
The second burden of proof required him to show that the information is factually admissible. The information falls short. Maybe half-way of meeting the criteria for admissibility if I'm being generous.
As it currently stands, Pro's burden of proof remains unfulfilled.
The debate doesnt require me to prove what information, it requires me to prove that there is some information. The source already said that many Christians became Christians because of their parents, who provided them some information about Christian God which lead them to conclusion that Christian God exists. In fact, the mere conclusion that Christian God (as described in Bible) exists requires by tautology some information about that Christian God.
Yes, it does.
I defined the distinction between evidence and information, even if they aren't mutually exclusive.
All evidence is information, but not all information is evidence.
Sadly, random quotes dont mean anything in debate. But such quote is false, as the very conclusion of Christian God being real requires some information, at least about Christian God himself.This debate isnt about converting non-Christians to Christians, but given that Christians are the largest religious group, its obvious that it has some information which leads people to convert to it.
Pro does not have access to this information and cannot verify said information exists. Nor can he demonstrate the quality of the information that makes it evidence.
In the book Influence by Robert B. Cialdini, people remain unconvinced by logical arguments or evidence. But if a popular person those people look up to are following a trend, those people will likewise follow suit. In christianity's case, a lot of people were met with brutal punishment or social excommunication if they denied christianity. This form of compliance doesn't = belief.
This is both strawman and unproved. Information doesnt stop being information even if some other information is lacking.
If information is too incomplete to reach a logical conclusion, then it is not evidence.
People are conditioned to make assumptions based on heuristics, not searching for the missing pieces of the puzzle to connect the information to find evidence.
The source says that not all legends are reliable, but it says that all available documents point to the fact that apostles did indeed suffer a lot. Their willing collective suffering and sacrifice is one of the most convincing information about Christianity, and many people convert to Christianity after learning information such as these.
Unsubstantiated.
This is one of the more common arguments for defending christianity. But there is no proof that this one-liner was the single reason behind a convert's decision to join. Let alone, many converts.
My opponent didnt even challenge the miracle argument which led child's parents to conclusion, didnt challenge that people do become Christians because of information they receive from others, and most importantly, the historical argument wasnt challenged. Miracles, apostles suffering and the spread of Christianity are all arguments which are used to argue for existence of Christian God, thus used to argue for such conclusion, so they by tautology lead someone to conclusion that Christian God exists, as proved by sources below where multiple persons are convinced by historical argument alone.
Pro mentions earlier that random quotes are meaningless.
That also applies to the book he is mentioning. The book was written for an already christian demographic, not to convince non-christians to become christian.
It is niche-based. The professional opinions of the medical community have not come to the conclusion of anything supernatural, they haven't ruled out everything scientific.
The information is incomplete. An incomplete set of information is not evidence, but non-evidence.
Again, we are left with two questions.:
1. What form of evidence does this information fall under. 2. Is it admissible or inadmissible?
Pro cannot answer #1, and we already know it is inadmissible according to the above.
Conclusion
I used Pro's definition, established the four categories that evidence is limited to, and demonstrated that information only becomes evidence when the information is complete.
And specified Pro's burden of proof. (Category & admissibility)
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro provided sufficiency definition for the particulars of the Resolution. Con tried to move the definition of "evidence" to align with accepted "evidence by the practice of law in a courtroom, The four types of evidence Con presented ignore "evidence" that becomes very personal, unseen by others, but that meet the definition of faith, leading to evidence, as by Paul, and james in New Testament texts. There is no definition in the courtroom procedure to accept this kind of spiritual evidence, such as the witness of miracles. pro's argument were supported by these conditions of applied faith, and effort to seek a power greater than ours. There is no courtroom nor a legal trial evident as a feature of this debate, so Con's argumeentws fail against the REsolution and Pro's successful arguments.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro wins because he did exactly what the debate asked for: he showed that some information leads people to believe the Christian God exists.
He gave real examples—parents, personal experiences, stories of miracles, and historical claims—where people heard something and came to that conclusion. That’s all he had to prove. He wasn’t required to show the information was scientific or legally solid—just that it led people to believe.
Con lost focus by trying to raise the bar too high. He wanted all the information to meet strict evidence rules, like in court. But that’s not what the debate was about. The rules said Pro only needed to show that some information led to belief—and he did that.
In the end, Pro stayed on topic, met the rules, and supported the resolution. That’s why he wins.
One vote?
Cant tag RM because he blocked me, but he will probably read this, so: RM, vote if you want here.