The Instigator
Con (against)
17 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
2 Points

Because it is a product of God's inspiration, the Bible is necessarily true.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,568 times Debate No: 20047
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)




My first debate, here we go! (Be gentle, please :))

So, I'd like to test the validity of an idea that recently occurred to me by subjecting it to the gauntlet of DDO. I shall seek to negate the resolution "Because it is a product of God's inspiration, the Bible is necessarily true."

God- the God of Christianity. (It is not my intention that the minor differences with respect to God between the Christian sects be consequential to this debate.)

Inspiration- a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation [1]

Bible- the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament. [2]

Necessarily- unavoidably, as a logical result or consequence. [3]

True- being in accordance with the actual state of affairs. [4]

Round 1 is for acceptance and discussion of definitions.
Round 2 is for opening arguments.
Round 3 is for rebuttals and additional arguments.
Round 4 is for rebuttals and rejoinders, NOT for new arguments.

Pro shoulders the burden of proof, as he or she makes the positive assertion.


Alright this should be an interesting debate.


God- I accept this definition but, am going to expand upon it.
1. God is omnipotent (all-powerful)
2. God knows all (omniscience)
3. God is immortal
4. God is everywhere (omnipresence)
5. God is holy
6. God is just
7. God is omnibenevolent (benevolent means good)
8. God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
9. God is perfect

Inspiration- Accepted

Bible- accepted

Necessarily- accepted

True- accept

Now I'll add my own definition:
The Doctrine of Biblical Inspiration (it's what we're debating)- "God the Holy Spirit so supernaturally directed the human authors of Scripture, that without destroying their individuality, their literary style, their personal interests, their vocabulary, and God's complete and connected thought towards man was recorded with perfect accuracy in the original languages of Scripture. The original languages of Scripture contain the very words of God, and therefore, bear the authority of divine authorship." (1)

Furthermore, I do not have the burden of proof because I am trying to support this claim Con, as he explained, is seeking to "negate the resolution "Because it is a product of God's inspiration, the Bible is necessarily true."" In doing so, he is placing the burden of proof upon himself as his claims are going to be made to attempt to upend the definition a Christian Doctrine of Biblical Inspiration, while I will be supporting it. The entire debate is centered around this definition and the definition of God because since God is perfect then, according to the definition the Bible is perfect so in order to negate the said resolution they need to either prove God does not exist or prove the definition of Biblical Inspiration false. Since my opponent was the one who brought forth the definition of God they are affirming that God exists and therefore need to prove the definition of Biblical Inspiration untrue. Furthermore, I do not make the positive assertion my opponent is asserting that a held definition is false because of x, y, and z. I am asserting it is true because their arguments x, y, and z are false. A Doctrine held by Christianity as true for centuries takes presence over someone who is arguing it is untrue today.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting, THEBOMB. I hope for a challenging and enlightening debate.

I accept Pro's definition of Biblical Inspiration. As for his expansion of my definition of the Christian God, I accept that these are all attributes believed by Christians to belong to God according to the Bible. I do not, however, necessarily vouch for their veracity, as I will show shortly.

I vehemently disagree with Pro on the question of who holds the burden of proof. By asserting a scientifically unfalsifiable claim, he assumes this burden per Russell's teapot [1]. Nevertheless, to get this debate rolling, I propose we compromise and share the burden equally, deferring to voters as the final arbiters of the issue.

Con's Argument:
The plausibility of Biblical Inspiration is dependent on a God who indeed possesses the attributes listed by Pro in Round 1. In short, Christians believe that God could have "supernaturally directed the human authors of Scripture" because they believe God to exhibit the characteristics that would be required of such an endeavor, namely those of omnipotence, omniscience, and perfection. The problem with that, of course, is that they believe God to have these characteristics because they believe the claims of the Bible to be true to begin with.

This can be viewed as a fallacious, albeit implicit, assertion of the human authors of the Bible themselves. In essence, Biblical Inspiration dictates that each human author of the Bible, while writing, asserts the following:

1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect.
2. God is, at the moment, writing these assertions through me.
3. As such, these assertions are true and God is therefore omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect (see #1)

This illustrates the fallacious, circular reasoning of Biblical Inspiration. Christians widely site their Bible as the authoritative source for information on the nature of God, but conclusions about the nature of God derived from the Bible cannot be used to support the veracity of the proposed "inspired scriptures", as they would presuppose the veracity of the very same proposed "inspired scriptures."

As such, the Bible is NOT NECESSARILY true simply because it is claimed to be a product of God's inspiration, as God's believed nature (and existence for that matter) is jeopardized by the doubt of whether or not God's nature is such that he would be capable (and willing for that matter) of divinely inspiring the human authors to write the Bible.

Some possibilities are that:
1. God does not exist.
2. God exists, but does not possess the requisite characteristics for Biblical Inspiration.
3. God exists and possesses the requisite characteristics for Biblical Inspiration, but does not wish to divinely inspire human authors.
4. God exists, possesses the requisite characteristics for Biblical Inspiration, and wishes to divinely inspire human authors, but has deliberately inspired them to write untruths.

These are but a few plausible alternatives to the reality asserted by Biblical Inspiration, proving that even though the Bible is claimed to be a product of God's inspiration, it is NOT NECESSARILY true.

The resolution is negated. I look forward to reading Pro's arguments.



My opponent and I have agreed upon a definition of God--the God of Christianity. Meaning that for the purposes of this debate the entirety of Christian beliefs about God must be true, that God has all of the attributes listed in Round 1.

Now there are scientific facts in the bible supporting the claim of divine inspiration. Only an all-knowing being could have known these scientific facts before science proved them correct.

1. Incest Laws established (Leviticus 18:6). This may seem quite simple to answer. It's screwed up to have sexual relations with a family member. Today, we know that genetic mutations can result from a child born of this kind of relationship. Geneticists have confirmed that the risk of passing a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative. Eventually, leading to the death of a community. Yet in the years leading up to 1500 BCE it was common practice to marry near of kin. Then, around 1500 BCE God forbade this practice in the bible. The question is how did ancient man know to forbid incest and that it was bad for communities? They did not. God had to tell them.

2. Scripture proves a revolving earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus stated that at His return some would be in bed, at night, while others would be working in the field or mill. People then did not work in the fields or in the mills during the night time they only did during the day. This suggests that day and night would be occurring simultaneously. Meaning a revolving earth. It was not factually known the earth spun on its axis until around 1679 by Isaac Newton. How could ancient man have known such a thing without a deity telling them?

3. The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). God repeatedly declares that he stretches out the heavens, the universe. But, it was not until 1929 that astronomer Edwin Hubble proved that the universe was constantly expanding. In fact, today most astronomers agree that God told man that the Universe was expanding.

4. Wind currents (Ecclesiastes 1:6). The Bible states, "The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit." King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago with absolutely no evidence to support his claim. It was a theory. During WWII airmen proved Solomon correct by discovering jet streams encircling the globe.

5. The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7). Other religions declared that Earth sat one back of an elephant or a turtle. The bible states that, "He hangs the earth on nothing." How could ancient man have known this when no other ancient culture had even theorized it?

6. Out bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7, 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the body is made up of 28 base elements--mainly carbon. All elements are found in the earth. Modern technology has proven this accurate.

7. The stars are much different from each other (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the invention of the telescope, the Bible declared what could not be discerned by the naked eye. If you were to look up in the sky all stars look the same. But, in fact, each star is different from one another in size, color, intensity, and distance from the Earth. How could have Paul known this?

So now we can change the assertions about divine inspiration.

1. God wrote the bible through a human author.
2. God "inspired" them to write scientific knowledge, and other knowledge, which they took on blind faith because they believed God was omnipotent and omniscient.
3. 3000 years later the scientific theories in the bible are proven accurate.
4. God is now proven to be omnipotent and omniscient because these scientific facts are impossible for ancient man to know without an all-knowing and all-powerful deity telling them.
5. God is all-knowing and all-powerful therefore, the scriptures are now completely true.

God exists, God divinely inspired the authors to write scientific truths, God is all-powerful and all-knowing, therefore, the entire bible was divinely inspired by an all-powerful, all-knowing deity who wished to give people the truth.

The plausibility of Biblical Inspiration is not dependent on a God who possesses the attributes listed in Round 1. In fact, it is dependent on a person believing that God possesses these attributes. Faith. There is no way that Con can prove that the bible is not necessarily true. I have proven that, through science and passages in the bible, that the bible is necessarily true.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you, THEBOMB, for you insightful arguments.

Readers, voters, and Pro himself will remember that in round 2 I agreed that the Christian God is believed to have the maximal attributes listed by Pro, but since the integrity of the scriptures that lay out those attributes is being disputed in this debate, I asserted that the view that the Christian God ACTUALLY has those attributes is not to be presupposed.

Last round, my opponent attempted to prove the omniscience of the Christian God by citing biblical references to natural phenomena that have been verified by modern science. Pro, in this instance, hopes that the whole of his arguments (i.e. his conclusion that God is omniscient) is in fact greater than the sum of its parts (i.e. each natural phenomenon cited). This is not the case, as each of the cited phenomena claimed to be known by God before modern science at most proves only that God knew these facts, not that he knows everything.

In the first place, Pro's examples of scientific knowledge supposedly too advanced for its time are hardly conclusive:

1. Jewish culture was not the only ancient culture that considered incest taboo. The pagan Greeks even did so, as evidenced by the abhorrence of the incest of Oedipus and his subsequent shame and exile [1]. Ancient Chinese culture discouraged incest, as did Islamic and Hindu cultures [2,3]. Clearly, the inspiration of the Christian God was not necessarily the source of this view of incest, as cultures not fortunate enough to receive such inspiration came to the same conclusion about its harms to a community.

2. This is a bit of a stretch on several levels. For example, I could confidently make the claim that within a relatively small geographic area, say, a city, at any given time of day there are people both in bed and at work. Expanding this area to the entire planet, we see that this claim does not necessarily assert that it will be both day and night on earth when this time comes. Additionally, there are instances in which the Bible seemingly contradicts the idea of a revolving earth:

•Jos 10:13 – Instead of saying that the earth stopped rotating, it says the sun stood still.
•Psalm 104:5 – It says that the earth "can never be moved."

3. The Hebrew word that corresponds to the English phrasal verb "to stretch out" is Strong's H5186 natah [4]. As one can see at my cited source, nowhere among the listed Biblical uses of this Hebrew verb is the English translation of "to expand." As such, the assumption that this signifies the expanding universe is unwarranted.

4-7. There are plenty of examples of the Bible getting natural phenomena wrong. In light of the following examples, we might more reasonably assume that the ancient human authors simply spewed their own interpretations of nature, often erring and occasionally writing resemblances of truth that a modern, Christian-biased mind would see as evidence, while conveniently ignoring the errors:

•The Bible, in Genesis 1:16, erroneously lists the moon among the sun and other stars as sources of light, whereas today we know the moon merely reflects the light of the sun.
•Leviticus 11:6 lists rabbits as chewers of cud, while modern animal science has proven that rabbits are in fact not ruminant.
•Deuteronomy 14:11-18 lists bats as birds, whereas today we know bats to be mammals.
•Genesis tells the story of the universe being created in a seven day period, whereas today we know it took billions of years.

Pro has, then, failed to demonstrate the omniscience of the Christian God and has yet to even attempt to demonstrate his omnipotence. Accordingly, Pro's fourth and fifth assertions about Biblical Inspiration must be disregarded.

In addition to failing to demonstrate the Christian God's omniscience and omnipotence, Pro has failed to demonstrate the Christian God's will to "give the people truth." As I have shown examples of untruths within the Bible, we must assume that God is not omniscient and/or not willing to transmit truth through the Bible's human authors, both of which are requisite to the doctrine of Biblical Inspiration.

Pro has failed to demonstrate that God has the necessary attributes for Biblical Inspiration, and therefore the integrity of the Bible's truth cannot be taken for granted (i.e. it is NOT NECESSARILY true).

Thus, the resolution is negated.


God is infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.
1. Things on earth undergo change, movement. Everything which moves is moved by something else. This cycle continues on into the past. But, it cannot on infinitely because there would be no first mover seeing as there is a limited time cycle. Therefore, you must go back to the first mover which itself is not moved. An infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent deity and because this deity is infinite, omnipresent and omnipotent it must be omniscience because it has "experienced" everything.
2. Order for things which lack reason proves there is an all-powerful God. Something without intelligence does not work toward a result unless directed by something with intelligent thought. (Compare to an arrow fired by an archer). Things do not just arrive someplace by chance. Everything has some purpose in the world. Therefore, everything must be arranged in accordance with a plan. What else has the knowledge and power to arrange this but an omnipotent and omniscience deity?
3. Experience proves that there is a chain of causes. It is impossible for one thing to be the cause of itself because it would have to exist before itself which is impossible. This chain cannot go back indefinitely as there would be no first cause and therefore, no middle and no end which again is impossible because you exist. Therefore, you must presuppose this first cause. An omnipotent God because only an omnipotent God could be the first cause of the universe.
4. Certain things either exist or do not exist because things come into being and eventually are destroyed. It is impossible for things of this character to exist eternally because what may not exist will eventually not exist. If all things were accidents eventually nothing would exist. If this was true then now there would be nothing because what does not exist does not take its beginnings through something which does exist. If nothing existed it would be impossible for anything to to begin and there would be nothing existing. Therefore, there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has cause of its necessary existence or does not. This chain of causes cannot go back infinitely. Therefore, there must be a something existing throughout its own nature not having a cause, but, being the cause of the existence of all things. An omnipotent, infinite God.

It can be argued that the big bang can take the place of basically all of these. But, what created the molecules which existed before the universe existed? An omnipotent deity.

The scientific facts present in the bible, which Con attempted to debunk, further support the proofs above.

1. The story which you cite is the story of a mythical king. Not actual fact. If the pagan Greeks so despised it why is Zeus, their main god, married to his sister, Hera? [1] Because they did not. As for the Islamic cultures, Islam and Christianity both share the same roots in the Old Testament and the same God [2]. As for the Hindu's, in certain sects of Hinduism incest is not prohibited. [3]

2. The bible does not contradict the revolving earth:
Jos 10:13--Joshua prayed to God and God performed a miracle. If the earth was to stop moving the sun would stand still.
Psalm 104:5 -- first of all, it was descriptive language used to describe a truth. If I was to say He is my defense; I shall not be moved does that mean I can not move? To Con, yes. Second, the earth has a foundation it does not drift out of orbit and billions of stars and planets stay in these orbits without colliding with any other star or planet.

3. Your source supports my argument. So I would like to thank Con here. [4]

4-7. Since you did not provide any empirical evidence to specifically attack my arguments they carry forward.

Genesis 1:16- never does this passage say that the moon creates its own light. And I am pretty sure the sun and the stars are light sources.

Leviticus 11:6- Rabbits may not, in the traditional sense, chew their own cud. But, they do go through a process called pseudorumination. So in a way a Rabbit does chew their own cud. [5]

Deuteronomy 14:11-18- we have to look at the Phylum and the Class for this:
Phylum Chordata (11:13-19)/ Phylum Arthropoda (11:20-23)
These are the taxonomic of the bat with the bird. Now divide by class
Reptilia (13-19-)/Mammalia (-19)
Regarding this Leviticus is in accordance with the classification chart.

Now for Genesis: Never does Genesis say the world was created in seven 24 hour days. A day is arbitrary system of measurement. It can be whatever you want it to be in terms of time.

I have proven that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, and omniscient. And using my logic from round two, the scriptures are completely accurate because an omniscient, omnipotent, infinite deity had divinely inspired the authors of the bible.

(My sources I'll put in the comment section because I only have about 50 characters left...)
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you, THEBOMB, for this fun debate.

Let's review what's at stake here:
Pro contends that because the Christian God exists as described in the Bible, it is feasible that the Christian God could inspire human authors to write perfect truths in the form of the Bible. Con's argument is that Pro's reasoning is circular, because it presupposes the existence and nature of God in order to prove the Bible true, which validates the Biblical description of God's existence and nature, and around and around we go.

Pro has attempted to corroborate the existence and nature of the Christian God using extra-Biblical sources. I will show that Pro has failed to do so, making the Bible NOT NECESSARILY true.

Con's Rebuttals:
1. Pro has in no way proved that what he refers to as the "first mover" must necessarily be "infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent." It is only required that this entity existed when the first move took place, be powerful enough to make the first move, and present where the first move took place. This first move does not require omniscience. The first mover might well have perished after making the move, making it finite, as well. Even if Pro had proven this first mover to have all of these characteristics, he has not even attempted to prove that this first mover was indeed the Christian God, having each of the nine characteristics listed by Pro himself in round 1.

2. Pro's argument here relies on the assertion that "Everything has some purpose in the world." In the first place, Pro has not proven this. In the second, this argument is comically narrow-minded as it does not consider things outside "the world." Even if Pro could prove that everything has a purpose, he would then need to demonstrate how this corroborates the existence of a God who has each of the nine characteristics listed by Pro himself in round 1.

3. See #1 above. The first cause is not necessarily omnipotent, but powerful enough to cause the first cause. This argument does not even touch on infiniteness, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, or the other attributes listed by Pro in round 1.

4. Here, Pro makes a series of bold metaphysical assertions attempting to prove the omnipotence and infiniteness of the Christian God. Instead of wading chest deep into his unelaborated, uncorroborated discourse, I shall simply comment that even if this discourse somehow proves the omnipotence and infiniteness of the Christian God, it in no way proves the other characteristics listed by Pro in round 1 which are necessary attributes of the Christian God.

For the Bible to be necessarily true, the characteristics listed by Pro in round 1 must be true, because 1) they are in the Bible so if they are false the Bible is not true and 2) a God with these characteristics is required for Biblical Inspiration to be feasible. Pro has unconvincingly tried to prove God's omnipotence, omnipresence, infiniteness, and omniscience. Pro has not even attempted to demonstrate the other 5 characteristics he claims God has, nor has he attempted to show that if God were able to perform divine inspiration that he indeed would be willing to do so.

As for Pro's attempts at demonstrating the Christian God's omniscience by citing supposedly advanced scientific knowledge in the ancient scripture, let's remember that even if each of these were convincing arguments, each ONLY proves that God knew this specific information, NOT that he knows everything, and certainly NOT that he exhibits all 9 necessary characteristics listed by Pro himself in round 1. For good measure, I should point out a few of Pro's inconsistencies in this portion of the debate:

1. Pro demands empirical evidence, while he himself is prone to haphazardly drafting metaphysical treatises with absolutely no evidence.
2. Pro applies varying interpretations of the Bible without justification to serve his own argument:

Referring to Psalm 104:5 (He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved) Pro says, "first of all, it was descriptive language used to describe a truth."

But regarding Isaiah 42:5 (Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out...), Pro claims this as hard evidence that God revealed in Biblical times that the universe is expanding.

3. Pro asserts at the beginning of round 2 that "for the purposes of this debate the entirety of Christian beliefs about God must be true, that God has all of the attributes listed in Round 1." He then proceeds to spend the entire debate attempting to prove that God exhibits various attributes on the list. If Pro thinks we should operate under the presupposition that God has these attributes, why is he not operating under this presupposition?

Allow me to point out the elephant in the room: Pro has left my round 1 argument completely untouched. He has failed to escape the circular reasoning of Biblical Inspiration, thus leaving room for the possibility that the Bible is not true.

The resolution remains negated. Vote Con!


My opponent has debunked all of my arguments; I respectfully forfeit this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
You won...nothing I could say would change that
Posted by Zbot 4 years ago
Forfeit? Be honest...did you just not feel like completing the last round?
Posted by Gileandos 4 years ago
I believe Zbot, just stated that the nature of God is up for grabs because it is revealed through the Bible.

Planning on using the Evil God hypothesis as Stephen Law does?
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
I just realized I forgot to cite my source....dang it if you want it here it is:
Posted by Zbot 4 years ago
The plausibility of divine inspiration is the question at hand. As such, the claims of the Bible, including those about the existence and nature of God, are in jeopardy.

As "God" is presented in the main assertion within a causal clause, yes, his existence will be presupposed by Pro. We will hash out the validity of that presupposition.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
Does the Christian God exist for the purposes of this debate?
Posted by Zbot 4 years ago
This debate is no more or less "rigged" than the Christian doctrine of divine inspiration, which is what is at stake here.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
I'm pretty sure pro has to prove God's existence....which is basically impossible
Posted by Gileandos 4 years ago
I would ask a more important question.
Is the same character or nature of the Christian God presupposed.

If not is Con going to just argue that possibly an "evil" entity made the Bible thus it would not logically follow and the Bible could be filled with evil lies.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ThePixeledWarrior 4 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit but also made plenty of convincing truth claims.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: honorable forfeit
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 4 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited honorably thus getting conduct. Con debunks all of Pro's arguments, thus giving Con the arguments
Vote Placed by cameronl35 4 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF from Pro, Con adequately responds to everything