The Christian God is Fake... Prove Me Wrong... I dare you.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
2. The Moral Argument
3. The Proof of Jesus’ Divinity
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
the whole "cause was not created, it simply was" thing? Where was that in the Kalam Cosmological Argument?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Thanks lol
Good job on this one, schooled him easy.
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
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
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).
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
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.
Thanks dude, hopefully you'll get to grade an actual good one sometime lol
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
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.
Have you seen anything you want to debate?
Thank you. I am looking forward to being more involved.
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
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.
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
Thanks!
Thanks, and yeah I might have to do this with someone else
I liked your cumulative case for God, your opponent's response, on the other hand, was somewhat disappointing and shows that he may not have read through your arguments but merely glanced over them.
It wasn't a diss... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHH!!!
Was that supposed to be a diss? If so, I debate in real life too. OOOOOOOHHHH
They weren't on this website. They were in real life. OOOOOOOHHHHHH!
Can you link the debates you did?
Challenge accepted! :)
Interesting enough? :D
Patience, grasshopper
So, are we gonna debate, or...?
lol
YES I WILL BECOME A GOD! IT WILL BE AWESOME! And then I'm gonna prove that god doesn't exist!......................................................................................................Oh wait... Crap.
Alrighty dude, I gotchu
You're gonna turn into god to prove he doesn't exist? XD
I might vote on this one, seems interesting and I feel like you've got a good shot at winning it, make it interesting ;)
Inductive arguments that show that it's unlikely that the Christian God exists would be sufficient. The debate title could be translated to mean "It is more likely than not that the Christian God does not exist (i.e. is fake)" as both debaters share the BoP (although you could even argue that the BoP is entirely on Con due to the wording of the resolution). There is no need for Pro to prove that God is logically impossible.
Dude. Haha! I don't need to be god to prove that god isn't real. Keep watching the debate, and you'll realize that god isn't real! There is a ton of evidence, so don't go telling me that I need to be god. Because If I have to I will.
I would like to see you prove yourself right, because you would have to be all knowing to know this. You would have to be God to know He doesn't exist.
lol this is a hardcore dare