Religion Debates

 
Sort By:
Showing: 51 - 60

Day-age creationism is consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

tstor
Sabata76

This will be a debate as to whether or not day-age creationism is consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible. I will be arguing that it is, so accepting this debate means you will be arguing that it is not. To clear up any confusion, I will define some vocabulary:literal - taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory (in this case, the word "day" in Genesis)...

Post Voting Period
0 Comments
Updated 1 Year Ago

Is The Augustinan-Calvinistic doctrine of "original sin" a false doctrine?

fishing_007
TheApologist

My opening argument will be taken from endorsing articles at: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/276-original-sin-and-a-misapplied-passage http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/793-does-psalm-58-teach-original-sin http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/458-a-realistic-look-at-sin http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/189-did-mary-jesus-mother-ever-sin http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/955-did-christ-die-as-a-sinner-upon-the-cross...

Post Voting Period
0 Comments
Updated 5 Years Ago

I know that God does exists.

fishing_007
Zaradi

Would you anyone care to debate me on this proposition?...

Post Voting Period
0 Comments
Updated 5 Years Ago

Is the god of the old testament a good god?

JonWebStar
Callen13

The bible is said to be the word of god. So, it is in essence, god's diary. If we judge god by his actions alone in the old testament we can safely conclude that god is immoral and that any human being of a good character could have made better moral decisions than the god of the old testament....

Post Voting Period
0 Comments
Updated 4 Years Ago

Atheism

MRHumble
Goooodstuff

Atheist Food For Thought.. IF, "It's arrogant to believe that we're the only ones in our universe." Isn't it also arrogant to discount a supreme being? Remember the Egyptologists trying to decipher ancient runes and inscriptions in the 1800's, only to be declared wrong a century later? Some are so quick to put faith in "Theories" which by definition are not facts, yet look down on others for their belief in something which is just as equally unproven. There are millions world wide that feel the...

Post Voting Period
0 Comments
Updated 4 Years Ago

The Argument from Biblical Defects is Sound

Microsuck
Jacob_Apologist

I am resending this challenge due to a glitch in the other round. Resolved: The Argument from Biblical Defects is a Sound Argument Against the Christian God. The Argument from Biblical Defects was first...

Post Voting Period
0 Comments
Updated 4 Years Ago

agnosticism

chris27862
RyuuKyuzo

It is very simple no human can tell you whether or not a god exists... however, all things being equal-the simplest explanation that fits the facts is always the correct answer......

Post Voting Period
0 Comments
Updated 4 Years Ago

The Argument for/Pro presented in the debate "Atheism is reasonably impossible" is flawed

StreetLogician
errya

I would like to take up the debate started by errya in "Atheism is reasonably impossible" since his opponent has not replied. The reader should note that the Pro position here is the Con position in other debate. The argument presented for/Pro "Atheism is reasonably impossible" is flawed. It is flawed primarily for two reasons. It relies on: 1. a false dilemma (Materialism or Folk Dualism) 2. a mistaken notion of "Natural Law" (dictated versus descriptive) The first round is to present a...

Post Voting Period
0 Comments
Updated 4 Years Ago

God Does Not Exist

MrRaguRam
Christcomes

Opening Speech (Ragu Ram): The hypothesis of that an omnipotent and omniscient being created this world is a poor hypothesis that creates as much questions as it answers. 1. It leads to an infinite regress-for who then created God?If that question does not arise,then hypothesising a creator is an arbitrary hypothesis-not one that fits the problem situation . 2.It does not make any predictions of a new kind-every good theory uses laws to explain and also gives us predictions of a new kin...

Post Voting Period
0 Comments
Updated 4 Years Ago

absolute knowledge

00
RationalMadman

Debate rules: BOP is on Pro, semantics are acceptable. Resolution: Humans are capable of absolute knowledge. By absolute knowledge, I mean true statements that are logically, rationally, justifiably, and flawlessly derived, that naturally pertain to the physical world in some way. It must be (logically) impossible for these statements to be false, such that the probability of them being correct is exactly 100%. For example, God has absolute knowledge. Argument: A priori, it is as lik...

Post Voting Period
0 Comments
Updated 4 Years Ago