Does the Christian God Exist

I have no doubt that he truly believes what he is professing. Though this is unconvincing to me, it cannot be said of my opponent that he is attempting to deceive or put forth arguments he does not believe in. I hope it is understood that I feel I too have been sincere. With that, I will provide my analysis of both cases and why I think I have won this debate. Pro’s Case My opponent has claimed that Jesus is historical. That he performed many miracles including raising himself from the dead. That we have good reason to believe these miracles happened due to so called eyewitnesses. He concludes that accepting those things prove that the Jesus is God. I maintain that as the case was presented it is a non sequitur. I provided examples of other supposed miracle workers who have as much if not more so called evidence via eyewitness. I further demonstrated that the claim of being brought back from the dead is also not unique. Thus I concluded that if the criteria that pro uses to support the claim of being God is sufficient, then there is sufficient reason to believe that there are many Gods. Pro’s response to this is merely asserting that “No, only one God has been raised from the dead and that is Jesus. ” This is not really a supported rebuttal, simply an assertion which we have no reason to accept. Now, I don’t believe that there are many God’s because I find that criteria to be insufficient. Largely, this is due to the weak nature of “eyewitness” evidence. I, like pro doubt the stories of Muhammed, Sri Sthya, and others. For me this is consistent with my view doubting Jesus as God. For Pro, this is inconstant based on his arguments. Pro does argue that “while eye witnesses are helpful for proving things, you got to make sure that they weren't deceived. ” This is a reasonable thought but not helpful in this debate. We have no way to make sure that those who witnessed Jesus were not deceived. If we did, this would not be a very interesting debate as we would simply know as a matter of fact. Pro asks "can my opponent name one person in history that claimed to be God and yet wasn't also insane or a liar? " This is easy, every Latter-day Saint. I was raised Mormon, and while I no longer identify as one, it is a core tenant that we are all Gods. While I find the belief silly and unsupported I don’t believe the millions of members to all be insane or liars. Pro also states that because Jesus is referred to as a “good teacher” it is fair to say he was not a liar. I feel this has been addressed sufficiently. It is obvious people can be both good teacher’s and liars. To believe otherwise is to lack interacting with society at all. During this debate we have discussed whether New Testament Sources are valid historical accounts. I mentioned that Tom Clancy novels meet the same criteria as the Bible for being accurate. To this he says “That is a fair point. The problem is that Clancy never claimed his story was a fact. The gospels writers claimed to be witnesses…” We don’t really know what the gospel writers claimed to be as we are unsure who the gospel writers even were as I have already demonstrated. Despite having shown this, Pro still insists that the names of the gospels are 4 eyewitness. This has been shown to be historically false, we are unsure who wrote them, when they were written, or if the author’s even claimed to be “eyewitness. ” To my dismay pro clings to his argument that the embarrassment factor adds validity. No, I don’t think that a person telling me a story that is embarrassing makes the chances of the story being any more or less true. As someone who has spoken publically many times I will now confess that I have often fabricated or at least embellished embarrassing stories about myself to make a point. Irronically, now that I have shared something embarrassing, do you think you have more or less reason to believe me? Pro claims that 40 years is actually not that long. I found this fascinating as Pro has not lived that long, not to mention Jesus did not live that long, so I am not sure what would be a long time to pro. I am shocked pro does not admit we don’t know the authors. ” The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time. ” (1) I maintain that scholars are entirely unsure who any of the authors were by name and refer my opponent to my sources from last round. Pro does claim these sources incorrect, but only claims so because they conflict with what he believes. He does not provide an argument as to why his is “more correct. ” I have provided enough it seems to throw sufficient doubt on eyewitness accounts of miracles. It should be clear at this point that even if you accept Pro’s points that Jesus is historical. That he performed many miracles including raising himself from the dead. That we have good reason to believe these miracles happened due to so called eyewitnesses. It does not follow that Jesus is God. Thus, Pro has not done what was needed to support his burden and does not warrant your vote. Con’s Case I present a case against the existence of the Christian God. Namely I present the problem of evil. Pro missed this stating that “It seems that my opponent is trying to show that the coexistence of God and suffering is impossible yet hasn't supported that notion at all. ” This is not what I did, I showed that the existence of evil creates a logical problem with the existence of God. I argued that; "P1) If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. ” Pro does not contend. “P2) If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. ” Pro’s contention here was that such a world is impossible. I ask him what kind of world the Garden of Eden was? Clearly, according to Christian theology, God does have the power to create a world without evil, or at the very least, significantly less. He provides a brief free will defense. Of the many reasons to reject this defense the biggest reason is unexplained suffer. Free will does not cover the vast number of evils in this world like natural disasters or the suffering of animals. In other words not all evil is the result of free will, there is a substantial amount that exists independent of people’s choices. The very fact that pro believes that God can do miracles or alieve suffering should show that such a God has the power to do so and it would not be impossible. “P3) If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. ” Pro does not contend this. “P4) If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. ” Pro rejects this premise in a similar manner to his last objection. If we accept the story of the garden of evil, we accept that God both can and desired to make a world without suffering. Pro quotes William Lane Craig who argues God could not have created another world with as much good with less suffering and free will. Again, what about all the needless suffering that occurs naturally and not as a result of so called “free will. ” “P5) Evil exists. ” Pro does not contend. “P6) If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil. ” Pro claims this to be a bare assertion though it is merely a culmination of the already supported previous premises. “C) Therefore, God doesn’t exist. " Pro claims this to be a bare assertion though it is the logical conclusion of the previous premises. I have sufficiently supported the Problem of evil. The God as defined in Christianity does not exist. This is clearly demonstrated through the problem of evil. Even outside the scope of this essay, we see that if a God did exist, he or she is "either impotent, or evil" and would also not be worthy of worship. Thanks for reading, and vote Con! Sources (1) Duling, Dennis C. (2010). "The Gospel of Matthew". In Aune, David E. The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-0825-6.