The Instigator
Microsuck
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
acvavra
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

Atheism is more probable than Christianity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Microsuck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,363 times Debate No: 25098
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (8)

 

Microsuck

Pro

I am resending this challenge because I neglected to change the number of rounds and the voting period length. Please accept this challenge and we can delete the old debate.

Resolved:
Atheism is more probable than Christianity.

I am challenging acvavra to this debate to put to rest his "arguments" for the existence of God.

For purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined as the God of Biblical Christianity. and "Christian" is defined as one who puts his faith and trust in Jesus Christ for eternal Salvation.

"Atheism" shall be defined as the positive form of atheism; namely positive belief that a God or gods do not exist. Therefore, I will argue a positive view that the Christian faith is false.

Rules:

(1) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate
(2) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.
(3) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
(4) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss.
(5) For purposees of this debate, we will use the AV 1611 KJV translation of the Bible.

Rounds:

(1) Acceptance
(2) Opening Statement
(3) Rebuttal
(4) Rebuttal

Other notes:

(1) 72 hours to argue;
(2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time.
(3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other;
(4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
acvavra

Con

I accept. I appreciate Microsuck's willingness to do this debate, and the benefit of an additional round. I look forward to his opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Microsuck

Pro

I want to thank acvavra for his willingness to debate and accepting my challenge. My opening arguments are going to be dealing with several issues. First, I am going to show why the Bible is NOT God’s Word; and secondly, I am going to show why God, as defined by traditional Theism, does not exist.

Note that I make several uses of footnotes. Please read them as it may be important for future notes.

I. Part 1: Why the Bible is Not God’s Word

"The dogma of the infallibility of the Bible is no more self-evident than is that of the infallibility of the popes."
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895)

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
Isaac Asimov (1919-1992)

A. Contention 1: Biblical Contradictions.

If the Bible were to be God’s word, then it should be free from contradictions.[1] However, we see that the Bible is full of contradictions. I will list two of my favourite contradictions for convenience sake.

A-1. How long did Jesus’ Ministry Last?

A-1-1. A few months

Although it is the earliest gospel, Mark does not give an explicated time frame as to the length of Jesus’ ministry. However, Mark gives some clues as to how long Jesus’ ministry lasted. One of Mark’s most often used words is the Greek word eutheōs meaning “immediately.”[2]

By Chapter 11, we come to the last week of Jesus’ life. Because the action moves so quickly and we are told that many of his events happened “eutheōs”, we therefore get the impression that Jesus’ ministry lasted only a few months.

A-1-2. Three Years

Tradition reports that Jesus ministry lasted for three years. This does not come from any of the Synoptic Gospels;[3] but from the Gospel of John. John reports three different Passover celebrations indicating that at least 3 years must have passed between each of the Passovers used in the Gospel of John (Ehrman, 2009).

Thus we have a contradiction: How long did Jesus’ public ministry last?

A-2. Who was the High Priest when David Ate the Bread?

A-2-1. Abiathar

Mark 2:25-26, KJV
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

There are two major problems with this: first, it was Ahimelech who was the high priest and secondly, it was perfectly lawful for David to eat the bread![4]

A-2-2. Ahimelech


Here is what it says in 1 Samuel:

1 Samuel 21:1
21 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?


In conclusion, Jesus was wrong.

B. Historical Errors

The Bible also contains numerous historical errors.

B-1. Anachronisms

An anachronism is a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement, especially in a juxtaposition of person(s), events, objects, or customs from different periods of time. For example, George Washington watching Television or listening to his iPod would be an anachronism.

B-1-1. City of Dan

The old name for the City of Dan was Laish and the account of its conquest and change of names is in the Book of Judges:

Judges 18:27-29
27 And they took the things which Micah had made, and the priest which he had, and came unto Laish, unto a people that were at quiet and secure: and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire.

28 And there was no deliverer, because it was far from Zidon, and they had no business with any man; and it was in the valley that lieth by Bethrehob. And they built a city, and dwelt therein.

29 And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.

This occurred after the death of Samson. Yet Moses wrote about it years earlier?

Genesis 14:14
14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

II. A Case for Atheism

"Theology is but the ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system."--Baron d'Holbach, Common Sense (1772)

A. Demographics of Theism

1. If the demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism, then the demographics of Theism makes Atheism more plausible than Theism;

2. The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism;

3. Therefore, Atheism is more plausible than Theism.

This argument begins by making the following observations[5]:

1. There are many more Muslims than Christians than in Saudi Arabia;

2. There are more Hindus in India than in any other part of the world; and

3. In the ancient world, every nation had its own distinct mythology.

This pattern is very surprising on the Theistic part. Isn’t it bizarre why God would let such an important matter of faith be dependent upon the place and time of one’s birth? The fact is, atheism better explains these demographics. If God does not exist, then religions are but elaborate social constructions. Therefore, we would expect the demographics to vary based upon culture and time.

In conclusion, Atheism is a whole lot more probable than Christianity. Thank you and good luck.


[1] For purposes of this discussion, a contradiction is to be defined as two or more propositions which are logically incompatible with one another. For example, “X” cannot be both true and false at the same time.

[2] In Greek, the word means straightway, immediately, forthwith (Strong). Examples of when this appears in the Book of Mark occurs at least 42 times (Ibid).

[3] The synoptic gospels are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They are called that because they are “similar.”

[4] For the time being, I will not go into detail in this debate about the lawful part of the bread. However, I do go into depth on one of my essay (Neff, 2012)

[5] Information from the following websites: http://www.state.gov... http://censusindia.gov.in... and http://www.ancient-mythology.com...

Bibliography

Ehrman, B. D. (2009). Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them).New York: HarperOne.

Neff, D. P. (2012, July 27). Internal Contradictions in the Bible. Retrieved from Why I am an Atheist: http://whyiamanatheist.elementfx.com...

Strong, J. (n.d.). Strong's G2112 - eutheōs. Retrieved from Blue Letter Bible: http://www.blueletterbible.org...

acvavra

Con

First off, my opponent is right that IF THERE WERE CONTRADICTIONS, then the Bible would not be the Word of God. However, he has to prove there are contradictions first, BUT the discrepancies he's mentioned, can be easily reconciled.
Let me explain:

Pro said, "Abiathar

Mark 2:25-26, KJV
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

There are two major problems with this: first, it was Ahimelech who was the high priest and secondly, it was perfectly lawful for David to eat the bread![4]

A-2-2. Ahimelech

Here is what it says in 1 Samuel:

1 Samuel 21:1
21 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?"

This can be easily reconciled. Observe:

First of all it is important to notice that Mark does not say that David went to Abiathar the high priest, it says he went to the house of God "in the days of Abiathar the high priest."

So, now the question becomes, why does it say "the days of Abiathar the high priest" when clearly Ahimelech was the priest at that time (1 Sam. 21:1)?

After a careful reading of the account of David and his men eating the shewbread in 1 Samuel 21 - 22, we simply find that there were multiple priests. In fact there were at least 86 priests in the days of "Abiathar the high priest" (1 Sam. 22:18)! Once Saul learned that Ahimelech helped David, he commanded Doeg to kill Ahimelech and his entire family (1 Sam. 22:18-19), leaving alive only one of his sons, Abiathar the priest (1 Sam. 22:19, 23:9), who managed to escape.

So, now that we see there were multiple priests during that time, the question then becomes, "Why does Mark refer to Abiathar as the high priest? Wouldn't Ahimelech have been the high priest at that time?" Not necessarily. Notice in Leviticus 21:10 how the high priest is defined as the one who has the annointing oil poured on his head and "is consecrated to put on the garments." Now look carefully at the wording of 1 Sam 22:18:

"And the king said to Doeg, Turn thou, and fall upon the priests. And Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon the priests, and slew on that day fourscore and five persons that DID WEAR A LINEN EPHOD.

If that isn't enough evidence, notice how there are MULTIPLE HIGH PRIESTS even at the time of Jesus Christ in Luke 3:2:

"Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests..."

After carefully studying the account in 1 Samuel, we see that Mark is perfectly correct in saying that David went to the house of God "in the days of Abiathar the high priest." This is not a contradiction.

Pro said, " By Chapter 11, we come to the last week of Jesus' life. Because the action moves so quickly and we are told that many of his events happened "eutheōs", we therefore get the impression that Jesus' ministry lasted only a few months."

This is not ad hominem, but that is one of the lamest "contradictions" I have ever heard. My opponent gave the answer already. Pro said, " By Chapter 11, we come to the last week of Jesus' life. Because the action moves so quickly and we are told that many of his events happened "eutheōs." Notice it was the last week of Jesus' life! His ministry has already been going on for 3 years! THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION.

Pro is arguing that Moses couldn't have written about Dan since it hadn't been founded by Dan yet in Gen 14. There is an easy answer. Since Deuteronomy 34:1 has the word "Dan" in it again, and this time it's apparent that the writer has to outlive Moses(Moses dies in Deut 34), the MOST REASONABLE EXPLANATION IS THAT God told JOSHUA to put the word in to fit the account in Genesis 14. After all, Joshua is also given a copy of the Mosaic writings in Joshua 1:8, and MOSES IS TOLD TO REPEAT TO JOSHUA THE WRITINGS OF THIS BOOK(Exodus 17:14). Further, Joshua has the authority which God gave to Moses(Deut 34:9).

Pro said, " Isn't it bizarre why God would let such an important matter of faith be dependent upon the place and time of one's birth? The fact is, atheism better explains these demographics. If God does not exist, then religions are but elaborate social constructions. Therefore, we would expect the demographics to vary based upon culture and time."

Has my opponent forgotten that the entire Book of Acts is basically the start of Christian Missionaries? Does he not realize what Jesus told the Apostles in Acts 1:8:

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: AND YE SHALL BE WITNESSES UNTO ME IN JERUSALEM, AND IN ALL JUDEA, AND IN SAMARIA, AND UNTO THE UTTERMOST PART OF THE EARTH.

God did not make faith dependent upon one's location. There are missionaries ALL OVER THIS WORLD.

Now I wold like to mention some problems with evolution, as that would make Theism more probable than Atheism. Observe:

1. Apes and Monkeys survive ALL the Transitional Forms(Ape-men). That's rather odd. Why can the monkeys survive, but the transitional forms cannot?

2. The lowest type of man feels the necessity of paying for his sins, and worshipping a Supreme Being, while the highest type of animal feels no remorse about killing a man and eating him. If we are kin to the animals(evolution), then why is there no similar spiritual structure.

3. Where do the "sexes" come from? One celled animals don't have any sex and NEVER DEVELOP any sex. A sexless being cannot automatically develop into a Bi-sexual being. Sexless one-celled animals never develop into two-celled "sexed" animals by themselves, under variations ofheat, or pressure, or moisture.

4. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. How then, did the Big Bang get enough energy to cause an explosion?
People do not evolve, they die. Nature does not improve, communications and transportations do not evolve, they are worked upon by an "intelligent designer." Inventions do not evolve, they are created. The Universe is not integrating, its exploding outward. Everything you can observe by FACT(science) DECAYS OVER TIME, IT DOES NOT EVOLVE!

5. The Moon moves away from the Earth 2 inches every year. If the earth is 4 billion years old, why is the Moon still in sight? Further, the Moon would have been hitting the earth 4 billion years ago, and have broken apart later. Why isn't there a Moon sized crater in the earth then?

6. Mules CANNOT reproduce. A mule is the offspring of a donkey and a horse. Its a genetic mutation and it cannot have offspring. So, how can one species evolve into another species if the offspring of one species cannot reproduce?

7. Demographics further weakens evolution. How? "If man has been here one million years, increasing at half a percent yearly(that accounts for war, famine, plague, etc), with less than 3 children per family, the present population would be 10 billion people per square inch of the world's suface"(Peter Ruckman). Listen, Friend, if evolution were true you would have PEOPLE STANDING ON TOP OF EACH THER HALFWAY UP TO THE MOON.

Sources

1. http://www.thywordistrue.com...
2. Evolution DVD, Bible Baptist Bookstore
3. Commentary on Genesis, Peter Ruckman
Debate Round No. 2
Microsuck

Pro

Thank you for your swift reply. It is a great pleasure to debate you. I am going to respond to your opening arguments first. Subsequently, I will defend my opening arguments.

Rebuttals to con’s opening arguments

My opponent’s entire case for the existence of God is based upon what he conceives as “flaws” in the Theory of Evolution. I will refute his arguments against evolution; and then I will also bring forth strong evidence in its favour.

I. Problems with Evolution

A. Why con is wrong: Atheism does not depend upon evolution.

My opponent makes a false dichotomy between evolution and Biblical Creation. Even if I concede that evolution and the Big Bang Theory are false, it still does not prove God’s existence. Indeed, there could be hundreds of possible unexplored theories for the development of life.

Secondly, my opponent makes a huge misconception about evolution. Evolution does not explain the origin of life; rather it explains the diversity and development of life overtime (Caldwell, et al. 2008).

B. Con’s question one

I fail to see how this is a problem with evolutionary theory. Humans and monkeys are different species. However, extinction events are rather common so once more, I fail to see the connection between extinction=evolution is false. Charles Darwin, in The Origin of the Species notes (Darwin 1859):

The theory of natural selection is grounded on the belief that each new variety, and ultimately each new species, is produced and maintained by having some advantage over those with which it comes into competition; and the consequent extinction of less-favoured forms almost inevitably follows.

The reason for this is that in nature, each species produces more individuals that can survive in its environment. Consequently, they must compete with each other to survive and reproduce. (Fairbanks 2012)

In conclusion, extinctions are important to evolution. Species come and they go. Now, it is bizarre why God would create species and then have them go extinct.

3. Con’s question two

There is strong evidence that the Neanderthals and other hominids had religious practices. Now, it is important to note that Neanderthals are not H. sapiens; rather, they are a sub-species of the homo genus. The main evidence for this comes from Human-Neanderthal DNA.

4. Con’s question number three

My opponent makes an argument from irreducible complexity: Sex is too great to have evolved independently. However, the variety of life cycles is great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual because there are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997). The earliest steps involved single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information. Sex, by definition, depends on both male and females acting together.

5. Con’s question four

My opponent confuses evolution with the Big Bang Theory—they are two completely different theories which explain different things. Secondly, the Big Bang is not an explosion. Indeed, it is an expansion. The best way to word the Big Bang Theory is thus: “In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler." (Feuerbacher and Scranton 2006) In fact, the BBT does not explain the origin of the universe; rather, it explains the development of the universe over time (ibid).

So, how did the universe come into existence? Honestly, I don’t know. There are some good hypothesies that I would like to present.

“In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion.” (Davies 1983)

In conclusion, it is possible for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe. To say that “I don’t know how the universe came into existence; therefore God did it” commits the fallacy of ignorance. Instead, let’s look for an explanation and if God is the best (or only) explanation, then let’s follow the evidence.

6. Con’s question 5

My opponent cites the moon as evidence for a young earth. I can’t do any better than to quote Mark Issaak on this point (Isaak, Claim CE110 2004):

  1. The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.
  2. The magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less. The earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years (Eicher 1976).
  3. The rate of earth's rotation in the distant past can be measured. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. Measurements of fossil corals from 180 to 400 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days per year (Eicher 1976; Scrutton 1970; Wells 1963; 1970). Similarly, days per year can also be computed from growth patterns in mollusks (Pannella 1976; Scrutton 1978) and stromatolites (Mohr 1975; Pannella et al. 1968) and from sediment deposition patterns (Williams 1997). All such measurements are consistent with a gradual rate of earth's slowing for the last 650 million years.
  4. The clocks based on the slowing of earth's rotation described above provide an independent method of dating geological layers over most of the fossil record. The data is inconsistent with a young earth.

7. Con’s question 6

The reason why is very simple. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against. (Isaak, Claim CB350 2007) Species are, by definition, groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups. (Mayr 1942)

Apologies, but I am out of room.


_______________________________________

Bibliography

Caldwell, Roy, Jennifer Collins, Josh Frankel, Alan D. Gishlick, Scott Hays, and Crissy Huffard. Misconception: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”. August 22, 2008. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (accessed August 13, 2012).

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species - Chapter 10: On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings. D. Appleton: New York, 1859.

Davies, Paul. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1983.

Fairbanks, Daniel J. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters. Amherst: Prometheus, 2012.

Feuerbacher, Björn, and Ryan Scranton. Evidence for the Big Bang. January 25, 2006. http://www.talkorigins.org... (accessed 13 August, 2012).

Hawking, Steven. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam, 1988.

Isaak, Mark. Claim CB350. June 8, 2007. http://www.talkorigins.org... (accessed August 13, 2012).

—. Claim CE110. September 9, 2004. http://www.talkorigins.org... (accessed August 13, 2012).

—. Claim CE110: Because of tidal friction, the moon is receding, and the earth's rotation is slowing down, at rates too fast for the earth to be billions of years old. September 9, 2004. http://www.talkorigins.org... (accessed August 13, 2012).

Kondrashov, Alexey. "Evolutionary genetics of life cycles." Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1997: 391-435.

Mayr, E. Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press, 1942.

acvavra

Con

I feel that Pro has put himself at a big disadvantage. He can finish his defense in the next round, but I doubt he will be left enough room to answer these rebuttals. But, we shall see.

Now, Atheism AS OF RIGHT NOW, is dependent upon evolution. Complete atheists cling to evolution, as such, the theist merely needs to show errors in it, and specifically, Christians need to show evidence for Christianity(coming up).

My opponent states that evolution does not explain the origin of life. That's fine, but then Christianity becomes more probable than atheism. For Christianity provides an answer to life's greatest question: Where did we come from? More on this later.

Defense of question 1
Now, as a former evolutionist, I am quite familiar with the arguments evolutionists bring up. My opponent appeals to Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest to answer my question. There is a huge problem here though.
1. Thousands of animals that we share a common ancestor with(evolution) are still among us(monkeys, chimps,orangutans,etc).
The evolutionist will counter and say that some evolved and some didn't. Okay, fine, but how can you explain EVERY transitional form going extinct? Especially since the transitional forms WERE THE ANIMALS THAT WERE NATURALLY SELECTED! Alas, my dear friend, the Saber-tooth tiger and the Mammoth were SUPERIOR to modern day tigers and elephants, not inferior, yet they "evolved" into something inferior? What sort of Survival of the Fittest is this?

Defense of Question 2
I was saying animals and humans have no spiritual structure. Neanderthal man is not an animal. A sub species is not a different species. Plus, all of these types of men can be questioned as to whether they even existed. For example, Java Man was "discovered" by finding PART of a skull, ONE molar tooth, and a femur bone. And marvel of marvels, the bones were NOT found in the same place; they were dug up MORE THAN A YEAR APART! Another human ancestor that has been discarded, Piltdown man, was reconstructed from a skull and some teeth found in an English gravel pit. Louis Leakey discovered Ramapithecus, a handful of teeth and jaw fragments, and put them together incorrectly to resemble a human jaw. In 1978, more bones were discovered, and Ramapithecus was just an orangutan. Another "missing link" in the supposed evolution of man, Cro-Magnon man, was discovered in southwest France. At the time, Cro-Magnons were supposed to be our most-recent human ancestors on the evolutionary family tree. Evolutionists now admit that the Cro-Magnons were 100% human; they were merely a tribe of people that often dwelled in caves and hunted bison.

Defense of Question 3
If evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the OPPOSITE. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles. Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout almost all the world's environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few. New features apparently don't evolve.

Defense of Question 4
Where did ANY ENERGY come from for this expansion? Indeed, the Creation of the Universe should have had some energy introduced. Where did it come from if it cannot be created. And this is where evolution will always be boiled down to: How did the Universe start? "I don't know" is what they will ALWAYS say if honest. One evolutionist said it just sort of "poofed" into existence? Well, let me tell you something man, you can't have a "poofee" without a "Poofer." But alas, Christianity becomes more probable because they have an answer evolution CANNOT give.

Defense of Question 5
According to Physicist Donald DeYoung:
"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long' ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year."
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system. Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery — unless it was designed that way from the beginning.

Defense of Question 6
They affect EVERY mule that's ever been born, not just individuals. Creationists and even many evolutionists immediately pointed out that all observed mutations whether laboratory induced or occurring naturally have typically been harmful, or in some cases neutral . Mutations are typically a copying error or mistake ,which cause things like disease or monstrosities and put the organism at a disadvantage . In addition, mutations have discovered to be an extremely rare event since genes have built in function to stabilize and rest change. So in other words, mutations are rarely seen and when they do occur ,they do not bring out and advantage to any living thing. Evolution like to use example of beneficial mutations in antibiotic resistance to bacteria , or in mutation of the tomato for example , though none of these types of mutations are relevant to any ideas about one kind of creature changing to another. One kind of creature changing into another via beneficial mutations has simply NEVER been shown.

I have little room left as well now. However, let me present some evidence in favor of Christianity specifically.
1. The Bble speaks of entropy(Hebrews 1:10-11).

2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth's free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).

4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world.

5. Job 38:19 asks, "Where is the way where light dwells?" Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," traveling at 186,000 miles per second.

6. Solomon described a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists "discovered" them. "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

Apologies, but I am out of room.

Sources
http://evidencebible.com...
http://luckythreeranch.com...
http://www.earthage.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Microsuck

Pro

Thank you for your swift reply. I am going to defend my opening arguments first; and if time and space remain, I will defend my rebuttals.

I. Why the Bible is Not God’s Word

A. Biblical Contradictions

A-1. Who was the high priest when David ate the bread?

My opponent’s solution is thus:

After a careful reading of the account of David and his men eating the showbread (sic) in 1 Samuel 21 - 22, we simply find that there were multiple priests. In fact there were at least 86 priests in the days of "Abiathar the high priest" (1 Sam. 22:18)! Once Saul learned that Ahimelech helped David, he commanded Doeg to kill Ahimelech and his entire family (1 Sam. 22:18-19), leaving alive only one of his sons, Abiathar the priest (1 Sam. 22:19, 23:9), who managed to escape.

My opponent is correct in asserting that there were at least 86 priests in the days of “Abiathar the high priest.” However, notice Jesus states that he was the high priest—not just an ordinary priest.

Also, this solution is rather awkward. It would be like saying that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon in the days of President Ronald Regan. Although Ronald Regan was alive at that time, the reading would be highly awkward.

Also, I point out that it was lawful for David to eat the bread—which my opponent did not refute. I am going to expand on that in this round.

David did not eat any "lehem panim" -- rather, the priest just gave David "kodesh." However, what IF it was lechem hapanim? Well, it would STILL have been ok for David to eat because Pikuach Nefesh (saving a life) is the number one priority according to the law (Leviticus 19:16) -- in other words, if a man has to eat pork to stay alive, then he would be REQUIRED to eat non-kosher food. The reason Ahimelech gave David the kodesh because David was in fear of his life and needed food.

Also, the Greek text does not support the idea that Abiathar was an ordinary priest. Moreover, there could only be one “HIGH” Priest at one time (Lev. chapter 16).[1]

A-2. How long did Jesus’ ministry last?

This is not ad hominem, but that is one of the lamest "contradictions" I have ever heard. My opponent gave the answer already. Pro said, "By Chapter 11, we come to the last week of Jesus' life. Because the action moves so quickly and we are told that many of his events happened "eutheōs." Notice it was the last week of Jesus' life! His ministry has already been going on for 3 years! THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION.

My opponent misses the point entirely. The time where the events began happening “eutheōs” in the Gospel of Mark was in the very first chapter with Jesus’ Baptism! Obviously, my opponent missed the point entirely!

B. Historical Mistakes

Pro is arguing that Moses couldn't have written about Dan since it hadn't been founded by Dan yet in Gen 14. There is an easy answer. Since Deuteronomy 34:1 has the word "Dan" in it again, and this time it's apparent that the writer has to outlive Moses (Moses dies in Deut 34), the MOST REASONABLE EXPLANATION IS THAT God told JOSHUA to put the word in to fit the account in Genesis 14. After all, Joshua is also given a copy of the Mosaic writings in Joshua 1:8, and MOSES IS TOLD TO REPEAT TO JOSHUA THE WRITINGS OF THIS BOOK(Exodus 17:14). Further, Joshua has the authority which God gave to Moses (Deut 34:9).

Sorry, but it appears that Moses wrote the book of Genesis – not multiple authors. I’ll concede; however, that if the Torah was written long after Moses,[2] then it is entirely possible for him to write about the City of Dan. However, doing so contradicts Jewish and Christian tradition which has Moses as the author of Genesis-Deuteronomy. Jesus Himself held to the view that the Law (in this case, including Genesis) were given by Moses.[3]

II. Why God Does Not Exist
A. Divine Hiddeness

My opponent is correct in asserting that Missionaries began in Acts. However, my opponent misses my point. Why would God wait so long to begin reaching people to believe in Him? Wouldn’t it be so much easier for Him to reveal Himself to the entire world? Indeed, as Ibn Warraq notes (Warraq):

“It is a peculiar habit of God’s that when he wishes to reveal himself to mankind, he will communicate only with a single person. The rest of mankind must learn the truth from that person and thus purchase their knowledge of the divine at the cost of subordination to another human being, who is eventually replaced by a human institution, so that the divine remains under other people’s control”

Because of the lack of evidence and the demographics of Theism making atheism more probable, Thomas Paine said in the Age of Reason (Paine):

“When I am told that the Koran was written in heaven and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself and, therefore, I have the right not to believe it.”

The same line of reason deals with Christianity as well as Islam. As Paul Tobin notes (Tobin):

[T]he absence of evidence is a strong case for atheism

Moreover, my opponent's arguments fails because there are multiple unreached people in the world. The Mission to Unreached People noted these statistics (Shuffield, Carlisle and Cunningham):

“Almost 2 billion people (27.9% of the world) are still essentially cut off from access to the Gospel. Many of these peoples live in major urban centers. Some are more remote and rural. All continue to be largely “ignored” by the Great Commission Christian world.”

My opponent’s rebuttals have all failed.

I am out of room. However, I can defend one of my rebuttals: namely, the fact that my opponent makes a false analogy between evolution and atheism. My opponent, instead of responding to the fact that evolution does not equate to atheism and that atheism does not (and never has) depended upon evolution, he instead shouts the same answer. Hint: You don’t defend “A” by shouting “A”! (We will debate evolution next).

Conclusion

My opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof. I have clearly shown that the Bible is in error in several places and that his argument for God’s existence does not hold any water. I hereby urge a vote for pro.


[1] There were, however, numerous times throughout Old Testament where individuals wore an ephod (only to be worn by the high priest) when they were not authorized to do so. One example would be Judges 17:5. What then about the two high priest at Jesus’ birth? Apparently, the Greek Twistament got that wrong also! Ciphas was the son-in-law of Ananus. Ananus was the high priest from 6 CE to 15 CE. He was removed from his position by Gratus. Gratus appointed Caiphas as High Priest – AFTER Ananus! (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

[2] This is the proposition that I hold to be most likely

[3] See Mark 10:3; Luke 24:27; and John 1:17.



Bibliography

Paine, Thomas. The Age of Reason . Secaucus, 1974. Print.

Shuffield, Wayne, et al. Mission to Unreachced People. 13 February 2012. 15 August 2012. <http://www.mup.org...;.

Tobin, Paul. God and Theology - A Case for Atheism. n.d. Website. 15 August 2012. <http://rejectionofpascalswager.net...;.

Warraq, Ibn. Why I am Not a Muslim. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2006. Print.

acvavra

Con

As I figured, Pro has put himself at a great disadvantage because now most of my arguments will be left unchallenged.
May the voters vote wisely!

Pro said, "Also, this solution is rather awkward. It would be like saying that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon in the days of President Ronald Regan. Although Ronald Regan was alive at that time, the reading would be highly awkward."

While the reading may appear awkward, it still doesn't mean it was a contradiction. Further, its quite obvious that Abiathar DID BECOME THE HIGH PRIEST AFTER AHIMELECH DIED. Since Jesus knew the scriptures, its quite possible that he referred to Abiathar since Ahimelech was executed.

Pro said, "Also, I point out that it was lawful for David to eat the bread—which my opponent did not refute."

No, it was not lawful. In the Book of Exodus, only the priests could eat the Showbread. Christ confirms this in the verse my opponent mentioned. Its never right to do wrong(even if it was to save a life). God killed a man for trying to keep the Ark from falling off a cart(2 Samuel 6:7). Even though it seemed right, no man was supposed to touch the Ark, even if it was going to fall. God did not approve of David eating the shewbread, thus it was not lawful.

Pro said, "My opponent misses the point entirely. The time where the events began happening "eutheōs" in the Gospel of Mark was in the very first chapter with Jesus' Baptism! Obviously, my opponent missed the point entirely!"

No, I didn't miss the point. But how can my opponent prove that there wasn't a time element of years between the events happening in the Gospel of Mark. Yes, Jesus' death was fast, but there are not that many chapters in the Gospel of Mark. How do we know a year or too didn't occur between the events of Chapter 1 and chapter 5? Or chapter 3 and chapter 6? My opponent does not give the text the benefit of the doubt.

Pro said, "Sorry, but it appears that Moses wrote the book of Genesis – not multiple authors. I'll concede; however, that if the Torah was written long after Moses,[2] then it is entirely possible for him to write about the City of Dan. However, doing so contradicts Jewish and Christian tradition which has Moses as the author of Genesis-Deuteronomy. Jesus Himself held to the view that the Law (in this case, including Genesis) were given by Moses."

Biblical tradition doesn't mean there right. Yes I believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but Joshua could have added some things. You cant prove that wrong. Consider this verse from Joshua 24:26:

"And Joshua wrote these words in the BOOK OF THE LAW of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the LORD."

Notice Joshua wrote in the law. If the Law was what Moses wrote, then Joshua added to it!

Pro said, "My opponent is correct in asserting that Missionaries began in Acts. However, my opponent misses my point. Why would God wait so long to begin reaching people to believe in Him?"

He didn't wait long. There are thousands of Missionaries in the world. The kings of the East(Matthew 2) knew to follow the star that led them to Jesus. These kings were from the Eastern World. The Ethiopian Eunuch of Acts 8 told everyone in Ethiopia what happened to him. David Lvingstone of the 1800s said the Africans knew God had a Son that died and rose again because they watched the sunset and sunrise everyday.

How does my opponent know that 2 billion people dont have access to the Gospel. Missionaries risk their lives in North Korea and Iran to get out the truth. There are underground churches in China. Just because an "official" statistic says that, doesn't mean the Gospel isn't being slipped in under the radar.

Pro said, "I am out of room. However, I can defend one of my rebuttals: namely, the fact that my opponent makes a false analogy between evolution and atheism. My opponent, instead of responding to the fact that evolution does not equate to atheism and that atheism does not (and never has) depended upon evolution, he instead shouts the same answer. Hint: You don't defend "A" by shouting "A"!"

Every atheist I have ever run across, believes evolution holds the key to understanding the origins of life, and that evolution is strong evidence God does not exist. That's what I've run across and I know that has to be the majority.

Concerning Ananus and Cephas, wikipedia is not a reliable source to go to. Any public school teacher finds it untrustworthy.

Furthermore, concerning the ephod, Judges 17:5 is about an IDOLATROUS MAN NAMED MICAH who made an ephod. God did not approve of such business. The man was a sinner!
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
@ScottyDouglas

First, why would I be biased in favor of pro? Second, I never said that pro fulfilled his BoP, but it is certainly true that con did not fulfill his BoP. This was a shared-BoP debate, and since neither side fulfilled his BoP, I left arguments tied. But, pro had more sources and he did not call his opponent's arguments lame, so pro gets the source points and the conduct point.

You are in fact the one who is biased because you actually gave con the argument points. You just cannot accept that a Christian can lose a religious debate. Get over it.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
Ron Paul seems to be biased. Pro never fulfilled any burden of proof.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
First off, I would like to say that the first two voters (especially the second) are VBers. Clearly, they either did not read this debate, or they are extremely biased (or most likely both).

Anyway, now for the RFD:

Conduct: Personally, when someone calls people's arguments (especially one's as good as Microsuck's) lame, they warrant the loss of conduct.
Sources: This is obvious. Con's sources are few, biased, and unreliable.
Arguments: Con's many arguments seemed to be underdeveloped because con had so many of them. However, some of pro's rebuttals were not strong at best. His arguments, as Stephen_Hawkins said, were jumpy and erratic. Pro's moon rebuttal I found to be very weak, to give an example. To conclude, this is a tie.

Great debate.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Arguments up in about 20 minutes to half an hour
Posted by acvavra 4 years ago
acvavra
sure
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Typing my arguments now. Hey con, care to debate evolution next?
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Not a problem.
Posted by acvavra 4 years ago
acvavra
okay, thanks
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
BTW, excuse the dust on the website, I am still working on development. You can join my forums and blogs if you want.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Sorry I ran out of room.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
MicrosuckacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Bob unless he gives a better RFD.
Vote Placed by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
MicrosuckacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think con did a better job in argguments and it is more probable that christianity is true.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
MicrosuckacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by AznWords 4 years ago
AznWords
MicrosuckacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Very hard debate to call. Con did throw ridicule into the debate by labeling a point as "lame" which is a poor show of conduct.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
MicrosuckacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: On the grounds that the debate is on who's arguments were more convincing, I can't really vote either way. Microsuck seemed to jump between arguments erratically, while acvavra's arguments were just... 100 character arguments times by 1000 character limit left means either a good argument, or ten horrible ones. CON seemed to go for the latter. But some of PROs rebuttals were weak even still. The rebuttal to the moon point was truly poor. The source, though, clearly goes to PRO.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
MicrosuckacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter davidtaylorjr votebomb.
Vote Placed by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
MicrosuckacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Most things were tied, however, since I use the Bible as my ultimate source and Guide, I have to say that Con used the more reliable source as that is what I believe.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
MicrosuckacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I do not hink much needs to be said about who was more convincing here. I gave a tie to the rest of the points because it was even. Pro brought up many claims and never fulfilled proving one of them. Con basically hand him his tail. I seen Con comment one every point that Pro brought forth though Pro flipped flopped every round. If Pro had little room to repsond He shouldve keep his argument basic to the strongest ones. He didnt defend properly one much less all of them.