Instigator / Con
21
1575
rating
5
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#790

God is real

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
6
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
2

After 3 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

vsp2019
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Twelve hours
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
17
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description

In the first round, I would like you to state which God/Gods you believe in and what are the main reasons for why you believe.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Kiss my goddamn ass.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

undecidedly undecided

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conduct to con: pro “effectively” forfeited two rounds of argument. While the rounds were 12 hours, it’s incumbent in pro to read the debate configuration before hand.

Arguments

Pro argues the bible is reliable, and that Jesus fulfilled 300 prophecies.

Con points out that there pro has not justified the reliability of the Bible, and points out some examples of unreliability, these on their face seem pretty damning to the reliability of the Bible.

Con points out that the primary justification for Jesus fulfilling 300 prophecies, citing the Bible. Con provides an excellent argument - using Harry Potter and usain bolt autobiography to justify why I shouldn’t consider this validation

Pro starts off by arguing that cons definition of reliability is incorrect, that it should be viewed in terms of a historical document.

While I’m largely sympathetic and agree that the exact definition con uses is not ideal, for “reliability” of the Bible to be justification of a supreme deity - pro must do more than show that it meets basic historical standards.

As a result - pros argument in defense of reliability appears to be more of a set of an excuses as to why the Bible isn’t reliable. It’s either a reliable document or not, factual errors, incongruities clearly undermine that position.

Pro goes on to object to the Harry Potter example as Harry Potter is self professed fiction - which imo misses the point of this argument. Pro drops the usain bolt argument which is far more relevant.

Pro reiterates that the Bible has been cited more than the Iliad. How this proves the Bible is reliable, I am not certain.

Cons rebuttal was to defend the definition as supported by pros sources. He then goes on to separate historicity from the claim of Gods existence.

Con also argues that pros logic is circular - using the bible to prove the Bible.

Con pointed out his Harry Potter example was absurd but intentionally absurd, and pointed out that witnesses of the Bible disagree on major points.

Pros round 4 was largely a set of rejections / there was little in the way of objective rebuttal.

So, the main issue hinges on reliability. Even if I assume everything pro said was correct about historical reliability - it doesn’t establish that a supreme deity exists - as historicity of content and that contents philosophical claims are not the same. Using a reliability scale more into cons position - the Bible clearly doesn’t meet the reliability criteria set out by his source, as shown by con.

Pro did not respond to the issues of predictions and prophecies that con highlighted - and as this debate was setup for pro to have the burden of proof (I would give him benefit of the doubt on the amount of proof he has to provide), the arguments provided clearly are not sufficient to meet it.

As a result: arguments to con.