Instigator
Points: 0

The Christian God is Fake... Prove Me Wrong... I dare you.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Speedrace
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1
Contender
Points: 2
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Hello there. As an atheist I have participated in many religious debates. And won all but two, And those two ended only ended in a draw because they had to leave. Now. I want an educated response. There will be five rounds of the debate. At the end of the debate the voters will decide who won. I understand that most of the people on this site are Christian. Therefore, I want the voters to vote as neutrally as possible. If you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Or atheist, Please put some thought into your vote before casting it. Who gave the better evidence? Who has actual proof? Don't vote based on YOUR religion, Vote based on who has the best evidence. Now, To begin the debate, I would like to hear proof from whomever I am debating against that god is real. Now, Send me your proof.
Published:
Thank you to my opponent for making this debate! I expect to have a very entertaining exchange. My job is to prove that God exists (I am arguing specifically for the Christian God), although I should say that making a reasonable case for that should be sufficient.

I will outline my argument in three premises. I will note that none of the premises are unique, and all of them have been used in the past by others.

1.       The Kalam Cosmological Argument
2.       The Moral Argument
3.       The Proof of Jesus’ Divinity

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
 
The kalam cosmological argument has its own set of premises:
1.   Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2.   The universe began to exist;
3.   The universe has a cause.
 
Through empirical observation, we have never observed something simply “exist.” Anything and everything has been caused. The first premise is very simple.
It’s when we arrive at the second premise that things get a bit trickier. Many people will say that the universe has always existed, and therefore the second premise is invalid. However, we know that infinity has logical contradictions. For example, if I have an infinite amount of apples, and I give you all of the odd-numbered apples, infinity-infinity=infinity. However, If I give you every apple numbered 3 and up, infinity-infinity=2. It’s contradictions like this that show that infinity doesn’t exist in reality. In fact, Fred Hoyle, a Cambridge astronomer, said “The big bang theory requires the creation of the universe from nothing.” [1] Through astrophysics, we know that not only the universe, but matter, space, and time itself was all created about 15 billion years ago. All of this shows us that the universe did indeed begin to exist.
 
Finally, this leads us to know that the universe must have had a cause. We know this because nothing just pops into existence; it is caused by something else. A table doesn’t just appear in your house built; it is made in a factory in a shop and then shipped there. Likewise, we can reasonably infer that the universe didn’t just pop into existence, it was caused by something or someone.
 
Now, of course, the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn’t lead us to the conclusion that the cause is God. However, it does tell us a few characteristics about the cause. Mainly, it made materials, so it must be immaterial, it made time, so it must be timeless, it is the cause, so it must be causeless, it made change, so it must be changeless, it made the beginning, so it must be beginningless, it made space, so it must be spaceless, and it obviously must be extremely powerful.
 
The following parts of my argument will work with this to show that the cause is the Christian God as described in the Bible.
 
The Moral Argument
 
The gist of this argument is that God created objective moral values and it is through those that human beings know what is right and wrong. If there is no God, literally all we are are atoms going through chemical reactions with each other. There is no “right” and “wrong,” only electrical charges, acidic reactions, and other various physical interactions. But because we know certain things are wrong, such as torturing children for fun, we can infer that something, or someone, created standards by which we know that those things are wrong.
Some may say that things like rape are wrong because they harm another being. However, if one can escape the consequences of such an action, there is no reason not to do it. However, if God created moral standards, then we do know that such an action is wrong.
Of course, that doesn’t mean all moral decisions are easy (as evidenced by the trolley problem or similar dilemmas). However, it does mean that we all know when we should or shouldn’t do one thing or another (with the exception of small children).
And before I continue, I am not making the claim that atheists cannot be moral. I am simply saying that, without a God, no one can make truly moral decisions.
 
The Proof of Jesus’ Divinity
 
Jesus, as we all know, was an essential figure in history and was very influential; not only did he start the most famous religion in history, with over 2 billion followers, but our very dates revolve around him.

The Bible claims that Jesus rose from the dead. First, allow me to establish the reliability of the New Testament, where this claim is made.
To do this, scholars put together the interpretations we have now to establish what the originals were like. The more copies there are, the easier it is to reconstruct the originals. Another factor is how much time exists between the writing of the originals and the copies. Many documents that we’ve reconstructed with high certainty that they are accurate only have a few copies and can span over thousands of years. An example would be The Jewish War, which only has nine surviving manuscripts dating about four centuries after the originals. As you can see, historians are able to do a good job with this.

In comparison, the New Testament FAR outweighs any secular document. The one with the most is Homer’s Iliad with 647 copies. The New Testament has 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts. These were all written within a few hundred years of the originals. As you can see, we can have very high confidence that the New Testament is reliable. [2]
 
Now, having established the reliability of the New Testament, I will look at the various theories used to try to falsify the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I would like to say that the existence of Jesus as well as his crucifixion are facts and are not arguable. Unless my opponent asks me to, it is a waste of time to discuss that. I am focusing on what is debated over, which is the resurrection.

1.    The Swoon Theory
2.    The Hallucination Theory
3.    The Conspiracy Theory
 
The Swoon Theory
 
The swoon theory states that Jesus never died on the cross. Let’s first examine the facts of the situation. We know that Jesus was severely beaten, stabbed, pierced with spikes and nails, was bleeding, and he even had a spear thrust into his side. The possibility that he could have survived this is ludicrous. However, besides that, he would’ve had to wake up, roll the GIANT STONE DOOR over the tomb not a little bit, but all the way out, and he would have had to do all of that without alerting the guards who were posted outside.
Some people say that the guards fell asleep and that the disciples came and stole the body. However, in those times, a guard could lose their life if they did that, so that is simply not true. And even if they did, they would’ve been awoken by all of the noise.
 
The Hallucination Theory
 
This theory states that the people only hallucinated Jesus appearing to them after he had died. Hallucinations are individual events and cannot spread beyond just one person. Here is a list of all of Jesus’ appearances:
 
Luke 24:39 Jesus’ Own Testimony
Revelation 1:18 Jesus’ Own Testimony
John 20:14-16 Mary Magdalene
Matthew 28:9 The Virgin Mary
Luke 24:34 Peter
Luke 24:13-16 Two Disciples On a Road
John 20:19,20,24 The Disciples (except Thomas)
John 26-28 All of the Disciples
John 21:1,2 Seven Disciples
Matthew 28:16,17 Eleven Disciples
1 Corinthians 15:6 Over 500 people
1 Corinthians 15:7 James
Acts 9:3-5 Saul
Acts 1:3 Saul
 
That is over 10 appearances to over 500 people. Quite obviously, it is impossible for 500 people to hallucinate the same thing. The hallucination theory is false.
 
The Conspiracy Theory
 
This one states that the disciples stole the body themselves and fabricated the entire story. First of all, there are absolutely no records of this ever happening. Second, the accounts of Jesus appearing to over 500 people disprove this. Third, they had Jesus appear to women. Women were not considered reliable in Jewish culture, so if they were to fabricate it, they wouldn’t have included women. Fourth, a lot of the Bible is made up of personal letters that are clearly not meant for the public eye. If this theory were true, the personal letters would indicate the exchange between the people trying to determine the logistics of the whole ordeal, but this is not the case.
 
So, as shown, none of the theories about the resurrection of Jesus holds up; except, of course, the fact that he did rise from the dead and appear to people afterwards. [3]
 
This has all led up to show that Jesus himself rose from the dead and therefore is the Son of God as he claims. This proves that there is a God, and we can reasonably infer that this is the same God that created the universe as well as an objective moral standard. This is proof that God exists.

Thank you to voters and my opponent for reading this. Over to you! :)
 
Sources
 
[1] Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology(San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1975), p. 658.
[2] https://www.str.org/articles/is-the-new-testament-text-reliable#.XPAzZIhKi00
[3] https://www.josh.org/resurrection-theories-debunked/



Round 2
Published:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Okay, to begin, I would like to completely disprove everything you have said. Okay? Anyway, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is an interesting way to prove the existence of a celestial being, except it's not. See, if everything has a creation... What created God? See? I pulled a little sneaky on ya.

The Moral Argument

About the moral argument, when you said that we are just random atoms moving and firing, you are right! That's exactly what we are! And until someone finds a way to disprove that on the physical level, and not by "THE WORD OF GOD" then maybe I'll believe it.

The Proof of Jesus's Divinity

Proof? What proof? There is none. You forgot one major piece of evidence. What if Jesus died and never came back? What if he never existed? Hmm?

So, got anything else?
Published:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument

My opponent's only response to this argument is to ask what create God. If he had read what I wrote, he would see that I said that the cause that caused the universe must itself be causeless because it created cause. I also said that it must be immaterial because it created all material and that it created everything, which would include the laws of physics. That would mean that the cause itself is not subject to the laws of physics necessarily because it created them before they existed. This means that the cause was not created, it simply was.

The Moral Argument

My opponent seems to misunderstand my argument. I will include premises this time to make it clearer.

1. Every human has an objective moral standard.
2. Objective moral standards cannot originate from chance or evolution, but from agents.
3. Therefore, a creator must exist that created the objective moral standard.

The Proof of Jesus's Divinity

My opponent seems to be ignoring the fact that the New Testament is my proof. No respectable historian disputes the fact that Jesus lived and died on the cross; it's all there in the Bible as well as in the Greek manuscripts. I will ask my opponent to respond to the points that I made in this section.

All arguments extended.
Round 3
Published:
I admit that my last response was not necessarily my best, but I was in a hurry, and now I'm not, so lets go! Anyway, the whole "cause was not created, it simply was" thing? Where was that in the Kalam Cosmological Argument? I never read anything remotely similar to what you said. And anyway, what more could I say about it? Also, what if the universe is an endless cycle? It'll just bang and crunch over and over again. That is what is widely accepted among people who do their research as proof. And the moral code? The human brain consists of thousands of neurons firing electricity at each other at the same time. The "Moral Code" is something we humans created to keep each other from feeling needless pain. And using the new testament as your proof is not really the smartest Idea, seeing as it was written by the followers of Jesus Christ, who would do anything to make Jesus seem more divine than he actually is. Believe it or not, Jesus's teachings aligned more with Buddhism than Judaism. Just because someone says something in a book doesn't mean it's true. The bible might as well be "Mr. Rainbow Fish's Guide to The True Fish Tank". And about Jesus being in the Greek Manuscripts? Do you mean Roman? Because he was, but there was nothing about him being resurrected after his execution. So when you say that he died and came back to life, you might need a bit more proof than a book.
Published:
Kalam Cosmological Argument

the whole "cause was not created, it simply was" thing? Where was that in the Kalam Cosmological Argument?
I thoroughly explained it in the first round. The cause is necessarily required to be like this in order to be the cause.

Also, what if the universe is an endless cycle? It'll just bang and crunch over and over again. That is what is widely accepted among people who do their research as proof.
That is not even close to being true. Fred Hoyle said, “The big bang theory requires the creation of the universe from nothing.” I said this in my first round as well. This is because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy is constantly decreasing, which means that the universe can't have existed forever because it would have reached its state of equilibrium an infinite amount of time ago.

The Moral Argument

The "Moral Code" is something we humans created to keep each other from feeling needless pain.
As I discussed in my first round, evolution works to benefit the individual, not the group. If there is no God, there is no motivation to not rape or kill someone or to refrain from doing all sorts of immoral acts if one can get away without any consequences. However, seeing that we still refrain from doing such things, that indicates the clear presence of an objective moral standard, and therefore a God.

The Proof Of Jesus' Divinity

And using the new testament as your proof is not really the smartest Idea, seeing as it was written by the followers of Jesus Christ, who would do anything to make Jesus seem more divine than he actually is.
I already addressed the conspiracy theory in the first round. Here is what I said:

This one states that the disciples stole the body themselves and fabricated the entire story. First of all, there are absolutely no records of this ever happening. Second, the accounts of Jesus appearing to over 500 people disprove this. Third, they had Jesus appear to women. Women were not considered reliable in Jewish culture, so if they were to fabricate it, they wouldn’t have included women. Fourth, a lot of the Bible is made up of personal letters that are clearly not meant for the public eye. If this theory were true, the personal letters would indicate the exchange between the people trying to determine the logistics of the whole ordeal, but this is not the case.

I did an entire section on the reliability of the New Testament, so stating that using the New Testament "is not really the smartest [i]dea" does nothing to rebut my case.

And about Jesus being in the Greek Manuscripts? Do you mean Roman? Because he was, but there was nothing about him being resurrected after his execution.
I meant Greek. As to the Roman ones, you gave no evidence for that. However, even if that's true, of course there isn't anything about his resurrection! The Romans didn't want Christianity to spread, so they had every reason to limit the story.

So when you say that he died and came back to life, you might need a bit more proof than a book.
The New Testament is completely adequate to explain this, as I stated in my first round. All of history is based solely on "book[s]." However, they are mainly based on the manuscripts and fragments of these books and documents that are built up to make the complete story.

All arguments extended.
Round 4
Published:
Thank you for the :) at the end! :)

Anyway, since we have been tossing around your evidence for a while now, I think we should move to mine. I would like to begin at the so called "beginning". Genesis. The story of Adam and Eve. Now, I may offend some of you, because I'm going to be a bit unprofessional, but at least listen to what I have to say. So, Adam and eve... oh my god... This is literally the most ridiculous bible story ever. So, let's start with their son Cain. Boy oh boy. So, Cain killed his brother, and as punishment was sent to leave his home near Eden. So this guy ends up going to a place called the land of Nod. He marries and has kids and- hold on... Weren't Adam and Eve the only humans besides Cain and his brother? Who did Cain marry? A dinosaur? Oh wait... Dinosaurs don't exist in the bible. Neither do early humans. But, as we all know, skeletons of dinosaurs and early humans have been found by professional archaeologists. People deny evolution existing (even though it's basic knowledge that evolution does in fact exist) just to say Adam and Eve were the first humans? BOI. Counter THAT! Anyway, good luck, Speedrace! :)
Published:
Cain's Wife

 He marries and has kids and- hold on... Weren't Adam and Eve the only humans besides Cain and his brother? Who did Cain marry?
He married one of his sisters. Adam, Eve, Abel, and Cain weren't the only people who were on the earth because Adam and Eve had other children.

Genesis 5:4: "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:"

And before you say "Hey, incest is a sin," the Law of Moses had not been established at that time, so it wasn't a sin then.

Looks like I countered that, "BOI."


Dinosaurs

Just because the Bible never mentions dinosaurs doesn't mean it says that they never existed. The Bible never mentions pandas, but that doesn't mean that it is saying they never existed.

My opponent dropped all of his other arguments.

All arguments extended.
Round 5
Forfeited
Published:
Arguments extended. Please vote Con.
Added:
--> @christopher_best
Thanks lol
Contender
#35
Added:
--> @Speedrace
Good job on this one, schooled him easy.
#34
Added:
--> @Caleb
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Caleb // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to con
>Reason for Decision: Pro did not make a convincing argument and all the "facts" he stated he did not back up with references. He made accusations about biblical truths such as Cain marrying a dinosaur obviously without looking into the bible. Pro then forfeited his last round securing victory for Con. Con was collected and professional and nicely laid out his arguments. He clearly deserves the victory.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Finally, "To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
************************************************************************
#33
Added:
--> @sigmaphil
I'll go ahead and challenge you to the abortion one, don't challenge me to the pets in heaven one because I'm not sure what my opinion is on it yet because I haven't studied anything on it
Contender
#32
Added:
--> @sigmaphil
Bare in mind, my vote here was very tryhard (as said, it was an experiment), so don't model your future votes on it...
The big flaw to your vote is not naming any key argument lines (you would not even need to name them all, but just make it easy for mods to verify you read the debate).
#31
Added:
--> @Speedrace
How about you start the Abortion debate and I'll challenge and I'll start the Pets in Heaven debate and you challenge? Or we can at least try. :-D
#30
Added:
--> @Ragnar
From your vote, you mentioned, "Pro offered no real case of his own, and made slightly amusing remarks instead of countering con's case." This was my main reason for my vote against Pro, so I'm wondering why it was not considered a weighted vote? At any rate I will try to do better.
#29
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Thanks dude, hopefully you'll get to grade an actual good one sometime lol
Contender
#28
Added:
--> @sigmaphil
I'm actually pro-choice and I've been trying to do a debate with a Christian over whether the Bible permits abortion or not, would you want to do that?
About the pets, I don't think they will, but I've done absolutely no research on that subject, that's really interesting! And I'm not familiar with the Annihilationist view
Contender
#27
Added:
--> @Speedrace
I have numerous religious topics I am doing in self-study that could result in some interesting debate topics. For instance, one study is heaven and the question is will our pets be with us in Paradise? Another is Hell. I no longer believe in the Traditionalist view of Eternal Conscious Torment. I am leaning toward an Annihilationist view. On the political realm, I am a string advocate for Pro-Life on Abortion, which is tied to when does life begin. I just need to nail one down and think through - come up with my arguments and support.
#26
Added:
--> @sigmaphil
Have you seen anything you want to debate?
Contender
#25
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Thank you. I am looking forward to being more involved.
#24
Added:
--> @sigmaphil
Hi Sigmaphil,
We don’t have a list of “example votes”, it’s possible that would be a good idea.
One of the best voters on this site is Ragnar, one of his recent votes is here: https://www.debateart.com/debates/975?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
We also have a thread dedicated to resources and links especially for new members - one of them is a general voting
Guide which is fairly current.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
#23
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Is there somewhere I can get an example of accepted (valid) vote...I mean if I did meet the criteria of 2 completes non-troll and non-forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments. I ask this because I read the arguments and used points 1, 2, and 3 to formulate my vote. Am I supposed to elaborate in the comments of the vote signified by point 1 through 3? Please explain. Thanks.
#22
Added:
--> @sigmaphil
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sigmaphil // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: My reason for my vote is clear. Con's position was thoroughly researched and defended with facts and theories supported by logic. Pro's arguments were defended with innuendo and pompous opinionated rhetoric devoid of facts.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completes non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote.
That being said. The vote would also have been removed were it not the case.
To award a win, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
************************************************************************
#21
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
This was a trivial decision as pro didn’t raeally turn up to the debate.
The KCA, the moral argument, and proof of Jesus Divinity were cons main arguments, he elaborated these well; and they are inherently intuited to understand. Their framing means that con meets the initial burden of proof.
Pros response was initially a non-response that didn’t dig or delve into cons argument, or provide an elaboration on why con was wrong.
Pros r3 response wasn’t much better, and didn’t crystallize any argument or point that allowed me to determine what aspect of cons position was wrong, a throwaway kind about cyclic universes, and a dismissive reference to acquiring morality isn’t sufficient to overturn pros point.
Round 4 was completely unrelated to any points made by con. And R5 was forfeited. This means pro dis. It provide his burden of proof at any point.
Con on the other hand extended, and reiterated his points, and as such his initial rounds were upheld due to lack of challenge.
The win goes to con as a result.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Doing a little vote experiment, trying to better follow the precise requirements set by admin (not sure if I’ll like it, but giving it a spin on a less important debate).
The important thing is I am giving each argument a score ranged (1, -1). A score of 1 is a slam dunk for pro, a score of 0 is a dead tie, and a score of -1 is a slam dunk for con.
I. Arguments
a. Survey Main Points:
1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument -0.25
Giving this 0.25, which is to say more than a tie, but it does not go anywhere expect building some confidence that there could be such a thing as God. Pro’s rebuttals fail heavily, but this argument does not go toward proving the precise God in question within this debate.
2. The Moral Argument -0.50
This boils down to “infer that something, or someone, created standards.” Pro did not refute this, merely asserted that it was incorrect (he could have pointed out differing moral codes, or various other tactics... even a reminder that it does not verify the big capital G.).
3. The Proof of Jesus’ Divinity -1.0
I was grading this at a -.75 prior to seeing pro’s reply. Pro’s reply was predicted and pre-refuted within con’s case, and worse was far weaker than con’s own, it was as if pro committed some type of reverse straw-person against himself.
4. Cain’s Wife 0.25
Con countered this by explained where Cain could have found a wife, and I am unsure why he defended the grossness of Cain apparently hooking up with his sister (or why she’d want to marry a murderer). Grading this above 0 as the timeline here is pretty hard to believe, and a small bit of credit for the humor.
5. Dinosaurs 0
They support nor harm neither case. Perhaps had pro not forfeited he would have made a nice joke about Pandas not existing.
b. Weighting:
See scores above.
c. Results:
-1.5, so con wins by a lot.
Was going to continue into the other categories, but I am already sick of this experiment. Pro offered no real case of his own, and made slightly amusing remarks instead of countering con's case.