CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:229
Arguments:170
Total Votes:298
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 If God would/does exist, Why whould Christianity be the best explaination of his being (170)

Debate Creator

PungSviti(552) pic



If God would/does exist, Why whould Christianity be the best explaination of his being

or if you have any other religion, why is yours the best explination

Add New Argument
11 points

Aside from the rampant sexism (which it got from its early spokespersons) and its wrongheaded notions about human superiority (which it got from Judaism), there is very little of Christianity that was not pilfered from earlier sun-god cults, most notably the cult of Mithras and the cult of Isis and Horus.

Not one thing claimed as "proof" of Christianity is unique or original to Christianity. Not a dying-rising son of god, not a creator deity, not miracles, not a holy book, not speaking in tongues, not prophecies that come true, not angelic hosts, not virgin birth, not persisting for a thousand years or more, not having a personal relationship with one's gods, not "salvation" in the afterlife, not "the end of the world," nothing. Its father-god is identical in every significant respect to the "pagan" shepherd-gods found both in earlier, and in unrelated, desert societies all over the place. That's not proof of a god; that's proof of the correctness of the underlying premises of the fields of sociology and cultural anthropology.

All of Christianity's myths and tenets were pastiched together from earlier "pagan" mythologies which in many cases had themselves persisted successfully for centuries. I'm sure some hopped-up Christian will downvote me for pointing these facts out, but they're inconveniently true.

What Christianity has produced since then is mostly sexual repression and genocide, a la the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-burning, and the works of St. Augustine (just to offer up a few choice examples). This is because its philosophical underpinnings -- such as its model of the soul, its notions about the social roles of women, its ideas about humankind's relationship to the rest of the universe, and its concepts of "sin" as opposed to moral wrongdoing -- are all completely and thoroughly fubared.

So nah . . . nothing about Christianity proves it as the "best" explanation of the divine, just one of the currently-more-popular ones.

To the second point: my religion is the best path for me because it inspires my life choices, enhances my respect for and understanding of the universe, informs my sense of relationship to other beings, guides my moral decisionmaking, and resonates with the truth of my experiences and intuition. I would not ever presume to say that my understanding of "god" is "best" for everyone. Divine wonder and beauty are far too great to be forced into one face or one name. To label and confine "god" is to cease to have any hope of really understanding "god."

Side: It is not Christianity
jstantall(178) Disputed
1 point

Banshee,

In the last ten days I talked with several people who went by the name Banshee, therefore your just a myth. :)

Before you criticize Christianity you ought to get your facts straight, because knocking down straw men doesn't persuade those who know differently. Here is a book to help you out:http://www.amazon.com/Whats-So-Great-about-Christianity/dp/1414326017/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s;=books&qid;=1253572280&sr;=1-1

Also, about the assertion that Christianity is cobbled together from other religions. It's simply false, unless you have a wild imagination. I offer the following article as evidence contrary to your assertion. Please take the time to read the article I've provided a link to,

Finally, the kind of God I'm referring to exist independently of what I think or believe and conversely, whether or not you think He exist. Our existence is contingent on His.

But I would like to know what would count as proof of Christianity for you? Because it seems nothing I offer is adequate.

Supporting Evidence: Jesus, the Recycled Redeemer (www.str.org)
Side: Christianity is the best explanation
Banshee(288) Disputed
9 points

Yes, I glanced at your recommended book. I frankly thought it was silly. Talk about straw men! It actually argues that Christianity is the origin of the two-parent family. That’s bollocks, of course. Nor is Christianity the philosophy that first originated notions of human dignity. Buddhism had done that well before. The “preciousness and equal worth of every life” is also hardly inherent to Christianity – they killed heretics in droves. And Christian notions about salvation, far from being necessary to the continued preservation of civil rights, are deadly deadly fatal to society.

“Far too often throughout this work, Mr D'Souza presents conclusions which are not supported by his own claims, references, or observations. His thinking is muddled, uncoordinated, clearly biased, and in many cases demonstrably wrong.” – customer reviews, Amazon.com

“D'Souza gives credit to Christianity for everything from the principle of limited government to the development of the scientific method . . . Notice [his shifts in word choice] from a ‘nonmaterial’ to a ‘spiritual’ cause and then to a ‘creator.’ One would hope that these transitions would be supported later in the chapter. However, the same style of reasoning persists . . . D'Souza seems particularly proud of this use of Kant's philosophy to maintain that there is a reality of a completely different order. However, his chapter citations make essentially no reference to the huge philosophical literature exploring Kant's reasoning and its underlying assumptions . . . Furthermore, while Kant's philosophy is notoriously difficult to interpret, it may be that the distinction he makes has little to do with religion . . . This style of argumentation is not likely to convince atheists, or even doubters . . . It is hard to believe that D'Souza thinks that his arguments could convince someone who is not already committed to a theistic point of view. In any case, they would only establish the existence of a supernatural being of some sort. What is amazing, then, is that his arguments for Christianity in Chapter 25 consist almost exclusively of straightforward assertions of Christian doctrine. Almost nothing he says would be persuasive to someone with a different religious view.” http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/william_faris/so-great.html

Oh, and the unsupported refutations of well-established links between the Christ myth and earlier pagan myths in your "recycled" article are simply and plainly incorrect, point blank.

So before you put up any more straw men in front of those who know better, you should get your facts straight. This will "help you out":

Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, http://www.pocm.info/

The Pagan Origins of Christian Mythology, http://www.realmagick.com/articles/51/1551.html

The Jesus Heist, http://www.geocities.com/christprise/pagan-origins.html

Similarities Between Pagan and Christian Practices, http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

Links Between Jesus and Other Semitic or Indo-European Heroes, http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa4.htm

Side: It is not Christianity
Banshee(288) Disputed
3 points

Nope, nothing you offer is adequate proof. I've spent time immersed in Christian theology, and I've read all its greatest scholars and apologists, and I've rejected it!

:D

And, my assertions about its historical origins are entirely correct.

:D

And, you have not proven that your notions about god, or what that god is like, suggest that such god actually has substance and being outside your own head!

:D

And yes, I AM a myth.

Side: It is not Christianity
1 point

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has not burdened you with the responsibility of proving His existence. Nor has He burdened any man with such a task.

Why do you labor as though you are doing God a favor by attempting to prove his existence?

God has no apologist nor body of apologists!

Side: God has no apologist
lawnman(1106) Disputed
0 points

To label and confine "god" is to cease to have any hope of really understanding "god."

Wow, you did nothing but label and confine the God of Christian doctrine, and therefore you have no hope of really understanding the concept of the Christian's God!

Forego the verbosity of your BS arguments and simply affirm that you believe in a God of your own imagination. And stop using your lack of understanding of your God, which you can't label or confine, as a broad measure of what God is or is not.

Shall I defame your nameless, faceless God? Oops, I forgot, how can I defame a God with multiple names and faces that exists only within your imagination?

You can worship what you want, but stop insulting others for that of which you too are guilty.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
Banshee(288) Disputed
3 points

I did not argue that definitional labels of a god or a faith are not of value, either intellectually, socially, or even spiritually. I argued (as a side point no less) that attempts to pigeonhole the divine into one such label are mentally limiting. The thrust of my post had to do with the un-originality of Christianity, which is fact, and with my assessment of its impact on culture, which is negative. And certainly a debate label such as "Why is Christianity the best explanation" invites such criticisms -- I would say it invites far more strongly-worded criticisms than I've yet seen here.

"Stop insulting others" is damn good advice for you to heed yourself.

Side: It is not Christianity
5 points

I've noticed that somehow sexism was brought up, so I won't be taking the side of the anti-Christians in this debate.

Instead, I'll take this opportunity to say that Philosophy is the only means of discussing God. Now, through logical argument we are able to find that Christianity is not the best explanation of God for it does not provide credible evidence for its claims about God, Jesus, etc. If Christianity were merely a religion about philosophy and not one based on "facts", it would be a better proponent for God.

As I stated in the beginning, though, I will not join in on the Christianity bashing because it seems that all you people are interested in is somehow pushing your own ideology along with the "disproving" or Christianity. It's annoying and takes away the whole point of the debate on God.

God is a part of Philosophy. To think about God, you must think beyond physical evidence and think towards reasoning. Physical evidence is good for understanding the world you live in, but if you wish to understand God you must first realize that God is not of the Universe you live in. God is something much more (this coming from the commonly accepted form of God; I'm not here to discuss those who worship golf clubs and such).

Does God exist? That is an impossible question to answer. Can God exist? As a natural being, it can not. God is a super natural being, and this is what's commonly accepted. The idea is that a super natural being CAN NOT exist, but it does for it bends the very laws of nature. Now, these laws of nature are to our understanding. We, though, do not understand the Universe enough to decide what are the ultimate laws of nature. How far nature can go. What is outside our Universe? Is there anything at all?

Is it possible that God is merely the missing piece to the Universal puzzle? Maybe what we find to be the intelligent or ultimate creator is a massive formation of energy that keeps us going. Is it God? Maybe we find that the formation that we see around us is merely conjured by a field of energy in an empty space and all of our "independent" thoughts are just part of a pattern formed by this random conjuration. Is this field of energy God? Maybe the Universe is God; for it is what creates everything we see. We can accept that w/e happens to us is because of the Universe. Maybe we are God. We know that w/e we see is there. We create the images. It's very possible that God doesn't have to be a single thinking being, but a being made up of many (our Nervous System and such). Maybe what we sense is our power over the Universe. Maybe if we could no longer sense it, it will no longer exist.

The Philosophy on God can go on forever with countless theories (mainly made up out of the blue, I'll admit) but in this case, God can not be debated with physical evidence, for the idea of God itself has surpassed physical understanding.

Side: Philosophy Is The Best Explanation
2 points

I agree with you on most fronts, however I am interested in this segment: As a natural being, it can not. Who do you believe Jesus was then? If you look at it from the trinity perspective, Jesus is God, God is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Now, that's all dependent on your beliefs and such, I am just interested about your views on Jesus.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
1 point

If Jesus is God in the Christian perspective, he is still not a natural being. A natural being can not heal wounds with just the touch of his hands. A natural being can not bring back someone who was once dead. A natural being can not turn water into wine without physically adding the correct ingredients for wine (which according to the Bible, he did not). A natural being can not walk on water in it's normal, liquid form. A natural being can not rise from the dead. And a Natural being can not be a supernatural being (God).

If you one believes in Jesus, he must realize that what he believes in is supernatural.

Side: Philosophy Is The Best Explanation
Banshee(288) Disputed
1 point

I disagree with a number of your premises, but you presented them well.

I think you dismiss immanence (the idea that "god" is present in the physical universe) in favor of transcendence (the idea that "god" is "out there," e.g., "in heaven") far too quickly. There is nothing about the idea of a deity that inherently conflicts with natural order nor any good reason to think that god, if such exists, is "not of the universe you live in."

You speculate: "Maybe we find that the formation that we see around us is merely conjured by a field of energy in an empty space and all of our 'independent' thoughts are just part of a pattern formed by this random conjuration. Is this field of energy God? Maybe the Universe is God; for it is what creates everything we see." I would suggest that there is nothing about this notion of "god" that posits god as outside the normal realm of being or beyond the ken of scientific thought.

There is also nothing about miracles that necessarily requires "the supernatural," if one is willing to consider either the proposition that the scientific explanation for the miraculous has simply not been found or the proposition that the supernatural is in fact natural but is just not commonly "tapped."

An example: people actually can walk on water. It has to do with not breaking the surface tension of the water. I admit most folks would have a helluva time trying it, but it's been reproduced under laboratory conditions and there's a scientific explanation for it.

I am not convinced that god is "a part of philosophy" if that proposition is meant to stand for the idea that god can only be approached through philosophy. Centuries of philosophy have not given us, as a collective culture, a solid handle on the nature of "god." Mysticism (in just about any faith), on the other hand, seems to give its adherents what they feel to be a very good handle on the nature of god. So while I will agree that physical evidence is not objectively dispositive of the existence or the non-existence of god, I think you are too quick to discard its value as part of a subjective proof.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
2 points

If Christianity is the best explanation, then why are there so many contradictions in the Bible? In Genesis, Cain is sent expelled, and then meets other people outside of his family. Given that at that time, according to the Bible, there were four people (Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel)(three, after Abel was killed), how were there other people? And he doesn't just meet one person, he meets families of several members, larger than his family. The Bible never mentions God creating other people.

In Revelations, the mountains flee into the sky. It's not that I can't believe that, because (assuming that there is a God and s/he is all-powerful) that wouldn't be much for God to accomplish. What I can't understand is how God can remove the mountains again, from a completely flat plain.

Given the amount of errors and contradictions in the Bible, of which two are given above, I have to say that Christianity is not the best explanation of God's existence.

Side: It is not Christianity
jstantall(178) Disputed
2 points

When I read your argument I give you the judgment of charity. I don't automatically think your an idiot if you say something that is contradictory. I give you the benefit of the doubt and ask: maybe he meant this in another way than I think, is there another way of looking at this that makes more sense? What am I missing? Notice I put the fault on my understanding and not on what the author said. If you want others to give you the benefit of doubt, you'd do well to extend it to them also. So instead of jumping to the conclusion: ah ha this author is an idiot. Try looking at it the way the author did.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
1 point

Christianity is a religion based on sun worship. The "God" Christians worship once had a name according to the Old Testament, "Yahweh". The title of "God" was instituted to put an end to all worship of other gods and deities for tighter control of the masses. The Ten commandments come straight from the Egyptian Book of the Dead Spell 125, they just rearranged the words. Study history and you'll see how man once had many gods and worshiped the sun and then you'll realize how Christianity was created to control the masses. Educate yourself first, believe second.

Side: God does not exist
1 point

I don't know about worshipping the sun.. but I do know that all the stories in the bible, from the parting of water to the great flood, are also in other cultures and religions.

Side: It is not Christianity
jstantall(178) Disputed
1 point

That's curious, how come the Bible is grounded in real human history and these other religions aren't. Why should I trust the claims of these other religions on spiritual matters when I can't even trust them to get history correct? It seems if I can trust the Bible on insignificant details I ought to be able to trust it on the major ones.

Tell me where I can view this Egyptian Book of the Dead Spell 125?

Also, could you tell me how the early church, which was under heavy persecution, controlled the masses? See I always thought that when you were being persecuted, the masses controlled you. But I guess I'm wrong, So help me understand this please.

The title of "God" was instituted to put an end to all worship of other gods and deities for tighter control of the masses

The Ten commandments come straight from the Egyptian Book of the Dead Spell 125, they just rearranged the words.

Christianity was created to control the masses.

Could you give me your sources for these assertions?

What say you?

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
Banshee(288) Disputed
3 points

These other religions are as "grounded in human history" as your own. They were practiced historically, and believed with all the fervor you attribute to your own belief.

You can view the original Papyrus of Ani, on which spell 125 of the Book of Going Forth By Day (often incorrectly referenced as "The Book of the Dead") is written, in the British National Museum. Or, you could just show a tiny bit of initiative and Google it. The similarities between the two texts are noted on Wikipedia, for pete's sake. Not like it's hard to find.

The Negative Confession of Ma'at (also known as The Judgment of the Dead), a.k.a. Spell 125, is given in translation below.

In truth, I now come to you, and I have brought Ma'at [truth] to you,

And I have destroyed wickedness for you.

I have committed no evil upon men.

I have not oppressed the members of my family.

I have not wrought evil in the place of right and truth.

I have had no knowledge of useless men.

I have brought about no evil.

I did not rise in the morning and expect more than was due to me.

I have not brought my name forward to be praised.

I have not oppressed servants.

I have not scorned any god.

I have not defrauded the poor of their property.

I have not done what the gods abominate.

I have not cause harm to be done to a servant by his master.

I have not caused pain.

I have caused no man to hunger.

I have made no one weep.

I have not killed.

I have not given the order to kill.

I have not inflicted pain on anyone.

I have not stolen the drink left for the gods in the temples.

I have not stolen the cakes left for the gods in the temples.

I have not stolen the cakes left for the dead in the temples.

I have not fornicated.

I have not polluted myself.

I have not diminished the bushel when I've sold it.

I have not added to or stolen land.

I have not encroached on the land of others.

I have not added weights to the scales to cheat buyers.

I have not misread the scales to cheat buyers.

I have not stolen milk from the mouths of children.

I have not driven cattle from their pastures.

I have not captured the birds of the preserves of the gods.

I have not caught fish with bait made of like fish.

I have not held back the water when it should flow.

I have not diverted the running water in a canal.

I have not put out a fire when it should burn.

I have not violated the times when meat should be offered to the gods.

I have not driven off the cattle from the property of the gods.

I have not stopped a god in his procession through the temple.

I am pure. I am pure. I am pure. I am pure.

-----------------------

So here's what the 10 commandments would have looked like in the original, pre-Judaic, Egyptian form:

I have not scorned any god. ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me.")

I have not wrought evil in the place of right and truth. I have not done what the gods abominate. ("Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord in vain"; "Thou shalt not make graven images.")

I have not put out a fire when it should burn. I have not violated the times when meat should be offered to the gods. I have not stopped a god in his procession through the temple. ("Keep holy the Sabbath Day.")

I have not oppressed the members of my family. ("Honor thy father and thy mother.")

I have not laid violent hands on an orphan. I have not caused pain. I have not inflicted pain on anyone. I have not killed. ("Thou shalt not kill.")

I have brought truth to you. I have not brought my name forward to be praised. I have not caused harm to be done to a servant by his master. I have not given the order to kill. I have made no one weep. I have brought about no evil. ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.")

I have not fornicated. I have not polluted myself. ("Thou shalt not commit adultery"; "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.")

I did not rise in the morning and expect more than was due to me. I have not defrauded the poor of their property. I have caused no man to hunger. I have not diminished the bushel when I've sold it. I have not added to or stolen land. I have not encroached on the land of others. I have not added weights to the scales to cheat buyers. I have not misread the scales to cheat buyers. I have not stolen the drink left for the gods in the temples. I have not stolen the cakes left for the gods in the temples. I have not stolen the cakes left for the dead in the temples. I have not driven off the cattle from the property of the gods. I have not captured the birds in the preserves of the gods. I have not stolen milk from the mouths of children. I have not driven cattle from their pastures. I have not held back the water when it should flow. I have not diverted the running water in a canal. ("Thou shalt not steal"; "Thou shalt not covet anything belonging to thy neighbor.")

==================

Further sources:

The Ten Commandments and the Book of the Dead

http://www.dwij.org/forum/amarna/2_cmndmts_book_of_the_dead.html

Possible Origins of the Ten Commandments

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10cl.htm

New World Encyclopedia: Egyptian Book of the Dead, Spell 125 - Negative Confessions

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Egyptian_Book_of_the_Dead

The Ten Commandments: Who wrote them? Were they original or based on earlier material?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10ck.htm

The 10 Commandments are a Copy from Chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead

http://edward.de.leau.net/the-10-commandments-are-a-copy-from-chapter-125-in-the-egyptian-book-of-the- dead-20070513.html

Side: It is not Christianity
1 point

Dear friends ;

God is something eternal, pure conciousness and ever lasting super natural power whosupports the universe.

All the religions have been created by men and not god!

After all, god knows no religion and ever one is his child and he responds to every one with love.

God has nothing to do with religion. If every one is his child, then every one belongs to same religion!

The one who realises this truth is surely a great one.

Then how can any religion describe him?

Side: It is not Christianity
jstantall(178) Disputed
0 points

Could you tell me the method by which you came to this knowledge? intuition, something you saw or read? You sure know a lot about this God; is it your religion that informs you or just your opinion?

What say you?

Side: It is not Christianity
jstantall(178) Disputed
0 points

That's a pretty simplistic answer. Are you going to really tell the mom who's 1 1/2 yr old baby, who just got ran over by the family car 'ever one is his child and he responds to every one with love." Come on man, you need a better answer for that mom than that. What are you going to tell her, how are you going to comfort her?

what say you?

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
1 point

If God does or doesn't exist how could we know either way?

What would verify it's reality and what would falsify it?

What would qualify as sufficient evidence either way?

How do you verify or falsify something that is in a completely different dimension that we have no analogy with?

If your an atheist, how do you have perfect knowledge of this dimension of which you've never seen to make the assessment: there is no god there

It seems that we are entirely dependent on such a being, if it exist, to reveal it's self to us and we could never discover it unless it did.

How could it do that if there is no analogy between us and it?

If it did reveal itself, how would you know? what evidence would be required to verify or falsify it?

If you claim to know something about God, either for or against, I'd like to know how you came to that knowledge?

Why should I believe what you say? what evidence do you have to verify your claim?

As a Christian I can say as did Francis Schaeffer He Is There and He Is Not Silent He has spoken in both general and special revelation.

What say you?

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
1 point

Deist is a RELIGION of Common Sense and REASON , the only one IMHO that works

Side: deist
1 point

Deist is a RELIGION of Common Sense and REASON , the only one IMHO that works

Side: It is not Christianity
1 point

It shouldn't be. The Christian God doesn't exist. Firstly, the Bible was written by primitive human beings who weren't bothered by the horribly immoral acts of the Bible's main character - God. God commits genocide by flooding the earth and destroying everyone alive (Genesis 6:7). He kills all the firstborns in the land of Egypt, even the firstborns of slave girls who played no part in oppressing the Israelites. God sets a plague upon the Israelites and kills a whopping twenty-four thousand of them because a bunch of them had sex with people who practiced a different religion than them (Numbers 25: 1-9). He sends two bears to tear forty two children to shreds for calling Elisha a “baldhead.” (Kings 2, 2: 23 – 24).

The list goes on and on. Additionally, branching out from the Old Testament for a minute, the New Testament and Old Testament are clearly incompatible; therefore, the former cannot be divinely inspired. There are obvious contradictions between the two.

John 3:13 says that nobody had ascended into heaven before Jesus, while Kings 2 2:11 states unequivocally that Elijah ascended into heaven.

Genesis 11:12 says that Shelah was Arphaxad's son, and the genealogy listed in Luke 3:35-36 contradicts it directly by saying that Shelah was his grandson.

Leviticus 20:9 condemns those who curse their parents and sentences them to death. On the other hand, Jesus declares in Luke 14:26 that no man can become his disciple unless they hate their parents, along with their wives and children, and brothers and sisters.

Numbers 25:9 states that God killed twenty-four thousand people in a plague, but in Corinthians 10:8, the death toll is twenty-three thousand.

Like the immoral acts of the Christian God, the list of trivial Christian contradictions goes on and on.

From this, we can see that the Christian bible was obviously written by fallible, mortal humans who could and did make mistakes. Christianity is not the best explanation of his being.

Side: It is not Christianity
1 point

Most people make this mistake...they keep confusing God and religion....God is not religion/religion is not God...I have from a very good source that God dose not like religion...I will leave it at this for now...I am new to this site do not know how it works..I really do not know if anyone will see this no less respond to my statement..regards to all....

Side: It is not Christianity
1 point

I will make my arguments below based on the underlying idea that God exists. You may not agree that God exists, but for the sake of discussion I will proceed from the premise that God does exist and that I am trying to make the case for Christianity.

In order to assess whether Christianity is the best explanation or worldview, the first thing to do is to examine other alternatives. Some alternatives can be canceled out easily - few people today believe in Zeus or Isis or Odin so there is little need to waste time trying to defend whether the Christian faith is more credible. In the West, the most significant contenders would be Judaism and Islam. While I don't want to insult people of the Muslim faith, the Koran was written for the most part by one individual whose claims to divine revelation do not have as many witnesses as were present for Christ's miracles and resurrection. While I don't want to insult people of the Jewish faith, I must ask is whether it was really coincidence that so many prophesies about the messiah from the Old Testament were fulfilled by Christ?

The second step in assessing whether Christianity is the most viable worldview is to look at internal consistency. Many non-Christians and non-Theists will be quick to point out a difference in a number or a detail that appears different in different places in the Bible. However, the Bible has an amazing amount of consistency when it is considered thematically and holistically. The New Testament letters, such as those written by Paul, Peter, and so forth expanded upon, but did not contradict, Christ’s commands. Also useful is the fact that prophesies about the End Times line up between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The themes of repentance, care for the poor, humility, sexual purity, and so forth were the same in the Old Testament and the New Testament albeit presented with different phrasing and parables.

The third step is to look at how well the Christian faith matches up with experience. Does the Christian view that Satan is the “god of this age” (2 Corinthinans 4:4) synch up with experience? Given that in the past century over 150 million died in wars or related violence, the fact that billions live in poverty and disease, that natural disasters are so common, that dictatorships and corrupt governments seem to spring up everywhere, I think that it is very reasonable to believe. How about the Christian view of human nature? Christians believe that human nature is essentially fallen and corrupt. This seems to be corroborated by real life experience (identity theft, gang violence, drug use, divorce, abuse, greed, etc.).

Finally, is there a good supply of archaeological and historical evidence to support the Christian claims? While there is no video footage of the feeding of the 5000 or of the resurrection, there are many extrabiblical sources from historical writers and from archaeological finds that can support Christian claims.

Have I presented a “slam-dunk” case for Christianity? Of course not! However, there have been many authors in recent past who have devoted books to this subject, and if you are truly open minded you may want to consider reading them.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
1 point

Philosophy is the only side that attempts to remove preconceived notions of religions, not just Christianity. Fact of the matter is that no one can confirm, nor deny the existence of god. However, evidence is overwhelming that all religions contradict themselves in attempts to explain it all.

Religions are necessary to give those who choose not to deal with the fact that its quite possible that there is no reason why we are here.

Without going in to great research it is safe to say that all religions speak of an afterlife. Why do we want this afterlife so bad? because life is kind of tough for most people and it gives us a sense of relief that death is not the end and things will get better. Without an after life many would not be able to see a reason for living.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation

I don't think any Religion would explain him. Stories change over generations and they have been twisted and turned to misinterpret god, even if he does not exist.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
1 point

It would not. If there is a God and he loves us so much, why is there Hell, sickness, sadness death. Gods loves us so much that he created hell just in case we don't love him back.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
0 points

I dont think a God exist, especially the kind that is described in the bible but I am interested in the reasons religious people give for bealiving in him/it/her

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
1 point

Christianity & many Religion Humanize GOD evaen some DEISTS

Side: It is not Christianity
0 points

Miracles. I have seen them and personally felt them, and science has nothing on it.

Christianity is the best explanation of God, because of the Bible. What other religious book predicted hundreds of years in advance of a man who was actually God, would be born in a particular city, be raised in a specific bloodline, die a particular death, and rise from the dead? No other religious book can say this or even come close. Besides, you have to consider the law of noncontradiction as well. If the Bible is true, than any religious book that contradicts it is false. At least 517 people saw Jesus die (1 Cor 15:4-8) as well as Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, and Talmud. No other religious text states that Jesus died, therefore, due to the law of noncontradiction, Christianity is the only explanation of God.

Side: The Bible
1 point

So...if I told you that 517 people saw me out on a date with Heidi Klum, and nobody else was able to reproduce the story, what would you think exactly?

Side: The Bible
jstantall(178) Disputed
2 points

The trouble with this argument is that there is not a parallel here. When the Gospels and Epistles were written, those witnesses were still around and could have easily disputed the claim, they didn't which is very telling. In fact, Luke makes it a point to note in the opening of His gospel that he interviewed witnesses for his account. Read it for yourself, this sounds like a historical narrative to me.

Luke 1:1-4

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
asdf789(349) Disputed
0 points

If it was 2 or 3 people, I would have doubts. But over 500? I find it hard that over 500 people would lie in a book that is surrounded by over 140 confirmed historical facts.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
1 point

I have to agree, I'm a Christian because the evidence is so overwhelming as you point out in the few examples you list.

On the issue of Scripture; If something were inspired by God it should have His fingerprints all over it, as does what is referred to as the canon of scripture. Anything else that claims to be must give evidence of it's divine origin and nothing else does.

No other book in human history has been more carefully scrutinized and studied than The Bible. And it has stood up to the toughest criticism, it has outlasted every philosophy that has been raised against it. You might say it has stood the test of time and in my opinion, mere men don't write books like this.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
lawnman(1106) Disputed
1 point

The bible cannot be evidence of God's existence. For the evidence of God's existence precedes and supersedes the words of the bible. The bible is only a written record of some of the history of one family and its God, no more no less.

Both you and your opponents irrationally think that the bible and its commentators are, in actuality, evidences of God's existence and non-existence, both camps argue from the absurd!

What say you?

Side: God has no apologist
PungSviti(552) Disputed
0 points

how did you see and feel those miracles? colors, sensations or what ?

if you saw/felt miracles - then you did so with your senses - now everything your senses can see/smeel/feal/hear etc, scientist have tools to measure - or they can at least measure your brain while it is processing those sensations

By saying that the Bible predicted the coming of Chirst and how he died a "particular" death - I am assuming you mean that the old testament gives that prediction - if that is what you mean then that is not true - it doesnt give specifics on the coming Messiah, especially not about the particularities of his death

If you are on the other hand talking about the new testament than you should know that the oldest scriptures found on Jesus are written 150 years after his supposed death

about your law of contradiction you loose me at the start because you start by assuming (without proof - as religious people tend to do) that it is true and therfore other books cant be

And remember, the statement of the fact that a number of people saw Jesus die is made by people writing about the subject at least 150 years after the fact. Given that they didnt have cameras in those days - how sure do you think they can be?

and just wondering- how old are you?

Side: God has no apologist
jstantall(178) Disputed
2 points

PungSviti

You're simply mistaken about your assessment of scripture both the Old and New.

You claim the Old Testament doesn't give specifics on the coming Messiah, especially not about the particularities of his death. Then please tell me what Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 are referring to? There are a whole lot more than these if you'd take the time to read the Old Testament.

On your assertion on the dating of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul was killed around A.D. 60 so how did he write his letters 90 yrs after his death? Second of all the city of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. One would think that such a significant event for the Jews would be recorded in these writings if it had already happened. It's absence is strong evidence for an early date of these writings.

On assuming without proof, I think you are mistaken. It's because of the evidence that I'm persuaded.

Your assertion that nobody can know things without cameras is just silly, By your logic we would have to throw out all we know about history prior to cameras. But cameras aren't the only way we know what happened in the past. There is a whole field of science known as Archaeology. There are over 500 (if I remember correctly) separate archaeological sites that confirm facts in the Bible. And not to mention you have to deal with the nation of Israel and it's history. Here is a good site for further research if you are interested: http://www.bib-arch.org/

So simple assertions like yours are not very persuasive to those who have done their homework. So, I would say that because you don't know of any good evidence for the reliability of Scripture doesn't mean there isn't any. I've included a link to a very good source if you are interested in knowing how the Canon of Scripture came to be, so check it out.

Supporting Evidence: The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce (www.amazon.com)
Side: Christianity is the best explanation
asdf789(349) Disputed
0 points

I'm not going to get too far into this, you asked the question and I answered it. Whether or not you believe in miracles is totally dependent on you. I'll tell you this, the miracles that I have seen are of a medical nature, and I have felt them as well. Say, for instance, you have a migraine, and all of the sudden it just goes away in a split second without any medication or anything else whatsoever. I am just using migraines as an example.

Yes, the Old Testament does give the prediction. Isiah 7:14, Isiah 9:6, Micah 5:2, Zechariah 9:9, Psalm 22:16-18, Isiah 53:3-7, Isiah 50:6, and Zechariah 12:10 just to name a few. Provide proof that shows the Old Testament does not give specifics about Jesus.

I provided proof for the law by describing the death of Jesus and how people historically saw it. You still have not shown proof that all 517 people were lying.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
Kinda(1649) Disputed
0 points

LOL! The Vedas predicted Abraham, Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha and many more. The Koran (I've heard) has had several prophecies fulfilled and I'm sure many religions have.

BTW you're using the Bible to justift..... the Bible....

Side: It is not Christianity
asdf789(349) Disputed
0 points

Really? The Vedas predicted that Jesus came from the bloodline of David? Where specifically does it say that? I'm anxious to know. We are talking about Jesus by the way, not Brahman, Shiva, or Vishnu.

Side: It is not Christianity
0 points

If God would/does exist, Why would Christianity be the best explanation of his being

What do you do when you have a difficult question about an area you don't have a lot of knowledge of? Well, you ask an expert in the field, right? But you must ask first: Does the person you go to have the qualifications to answer the question well?

So simply put, I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was. He did say He was the truth and He sure gave evidence that He knew what He was talking about.

But I can already hear the objections about the Bible and it's reliability. Even if all the claims of the Bible being copied from other religions are true. it doesn't disprove the Bible. Just because the first is a myth doesn't mean the second is also (non-sequitur) And you don't start with the assumption that the Bible is myth and the proceed to give evidence that it is myth (circular reasoning) No serious scholar disputes the historical reliability of the New Testament. If one is going to dispute the New Testament they have to give evidence of specific discrepancies in the historical evidence for Jesus. Not by citing other sources as alternate explanations, but by addressing the evidence of this specific account. And going after the character of Christians and the Apostles is to commit two fallacies depending on the argument used; ad hominem and genetic. It tells us something about these people but nothing about Christianity. It doesn't address the specific claims of Christianity.

Here is a debate between Michael Shermer and Ben Witherington III on the question: Is The Bible Bogus?

And please don't commit the genetic fallacy here by dismissing this because there are Christians in it and moderating it. Deal with the evidence, not the people.

Is The Bible Bogus?
Side: Christianity is the best explanation
-1 points

When I look out into the world I see a world of incredible design, I see a universe finely tuned to make life on earth possible, I see a universe governed by law and order and I see a world that is very aesthetically pleasing to the eye. I see an ecosystem so well thought out that life thrives in abundance. I see a staggering diversity in the design of living creatures; the engineering to make some of these creatures just function is mind blowing. Not to mention what it takes to write the blueprints for all these creatures in DNA. I marvel that after thousands of years of scientific inquiry, we haven't even begun to fully understand the human body; I can't even begin to imagine what you would have to know about chemistry in order to make a human being or any other living creature.

Then I find myself thinking, reasoning, feeling, loving, willing, desiring, assessing, dreaming, planing, designing, creating, building, etc. etc. I'm staggered by the capabilities and faculties of the human mind. Psychology and Sociology have not even come close to understanding all the complexities of the human mind. It is staggering to think about the life of the mind and the reality that it ponders itself. I have to ask: from where do all these things come that I see and experience. What would be an adequate explanation for their existence?

And then I think of the universe we find ourselves in. Science tells us that it had a beginning. Then I wonder, if ever there was a time when there was nothing, then we would still have nothing. So why is there something instead of nothing?

Something must exist outside of the physical world that is eternal and has the power of being in itself; it must be self existent.

So when I examine my world I have to ask: What is a sufficient cause for the effect I see? Are the laws of nature adequate to explain it or does the effect I see require the action of intelligent agent? Is what I see something that comes from matter or something that is forced on matter? Is it something that works from the inside outward or is it something that happens from the outside unto the object? I'm compelled by the evidence that it is the latter; an intelligent agent working from the outside to create and cause the effects we see.

Then my next question becomes who did it? By my observation this being would have to be self existent, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, and real. This being must be moral, good, just, loving, creative, rational, extremely intelligent, wise and caring. And it would have to exist independently of me since my being would be derived from it.

When I consider all the worldviews (an explanation of the world) I find only one that stands in a class by itself. Only Christianity has the explanatory power and scope to adequately explain the world we live in. Nothing else even comes close to accounting for everything we find in our world, nothing. I say that because all the things I listed above have to be accounted for and I've just scratched the surface of reality, there is a whole lot more that needs to be accounted for. The scope of reality is massive and it takes a very comprehensive explanation to account for it's many facets. And I have yet to see one as comprehensive as Christianity.

This is only a synopsis of this view. If you would like a further explanation of this view please consider reading the book I've linked.

.

.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
zombee(1024) Disputed
1 point

So your reason for belief is that the universe is incredibly complex, therefor it must have a creator? This can be a convincing argument on the surface, but once you analyze it closely, it doesn't really hold up.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

I could also argue that, even if true, that doesn't really mean that Christianity is the only explanation for this. It certainly is not the only religion that posits the existence of an intelligent designer for the universe.

And out of curiosity, what is it about the world that makes you think that if there is a creator, that they are just, moral, and good?

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
jstantall(178) Disputed
1 point

So tell me what kind of evidence are you looking for? In your opinion what would qualify as proof for the existence of God?

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
Kinda(1649) Disputed
1 point

In no part of your post show how CHRISTIANITY would be the true religion... apart from your subjective views on Christianity.

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing.. but when you say only Christianity has the explanations and nothing else even comes close etc.... it would be nice to give some facts to back this up..

Side: It is not Christianity
jstantall(178) Disputed
1 point

OK please tell me of one worldview that gives an adequate explanation for the existence of evil. Or how about the question, why is there something instead of nothing? If you've got a better explanation than Christianity,I'd love to hear it.

And I'd did cite a source, it would do you well to take the time and read it. Because it answers your objection quite adequately.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
1 point

Kinda,

I think what he is trying to say involves SURGE, an acronym I believe was coined by Norman Geisler.

S-Second Law of Thermodynamics

law of entropy, wind-up clock analogy

U-Universe is expanding

exploded out of nothing, big bang

R-Radiation from big bang

Arno Penzias/Robert Wilson 1965, cosmic background radiation

G-Great galaxy speeds

COBE 1992, ripples in temp of cosmic background radiation

E-Einstein's General Relativity

demands absolute beginning for time, space, and matter, accurate to 5 decimal places

Big bang and Genesis accounts both have chain of events that led to man commencing suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, therefore universe was created by Christian God.

Side: Christianity is the best explanation
Kinda(1649) Disputed
0 points

BS. <<<< In BIG BOLD LETTERS.

I hope you realise that when religions try to align themselves with scientific theories a LOT of what they say gets taken out of context.

Supporting Evidence: Big Bang in religions (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: It is not Christianity