The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Belief in the god of the bible is irrational - 2nd Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
the_dark_night has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 631 times Debate No: 95270
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




When I say "The Bible" I mean the literal interpretation of Christianity's holy book.

I don't believe in any deities, I believe in the big bang and evolution.

Belief in the god of the Bible is irrational because rational belief requires substantial evidence, and as such a thing doesn't exist belief in god is not rational.

*Nothing said in the comments should affect the votes.*

If quotes from the bible are required they must be from either the NIV or the KJV bible.

Round 1: State your relevant beliefs and opening argument.
Round 2-3: A mixture of posing arguments and rebuttals.
Round 4: Rebuttals only.
Round 5: Final rebuttals and/or appeal to voters.


The arguments presented here prove the existence of a timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, free acting, personal, supernatural, non-predetermined, creator of the universe and life which rose Jesus from the dead. Which is the Christian God. Since BoP was not addressed, I will assume that it is shared.


P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2) The Universe began to exist.
C1) Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

P1 is rooted in the law of Cause and Effect. For every effect, there must be a cause. P2 is supported by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, which states that any universe which has been, on average, expanding throughout its history must have a beginning [1]. The universe is expanding [2]. Thus it began to exist. Thus there is a cause of the universe. It must be timeless and immaterial since both time and material arose with the universe [3]. It must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent, since it caused a universe with no preexisting material. It must be intelligent since it caused such an ordered universe. It must be a free agent since there were no preexisting conditions to determine how it acted. Since it is free, it must have the capacity to be personal. A timeless, immaterial, extremely powerful (if not omnipotent), intelligent, personal, free agent that caused the universe to exist is the very definition of God.

The Pool Table Argument

Crafted by Salam Morcos (site is source 4) establishes that there is at least 1 uncaused cause.

1) Every cause was either caused or uncaused (Null Hypothesis)
P2) There is a finite number of past causes.
3) Let n be the number of past causes and let C be the set of all causes that ever existed: c1, c2, c3 ... cn
4). Now choose any cause cx from the set of causes C.
Using Recursive process:

5) Does cause cx have at least one preceding cause causing it?
6) If the answer is no, then cx is an uncaused cause. End of proof
7) If the answer is yes, then cx has at least one preceding cause causing it
8) Let cy be any of the causes that caused cx
9) Remove cx from the set of all causes C. Now the size of C will be reduced by 1.
10) Now make cx = cy and repeat steps 5 to 10.The recursive process will loop until either: a) An uncaused cause is found in step 5, or b) After a maximum of n-1 iterations, the size of set C will become 1. At that point, there's only one cause left in the set. There are absolutely no other causes available that can cause it. Therefore, this single cause must be an uncaused cause. End of proof.

Conclusion: The logic above, if the premises are true, concludes that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause. There's no escape.

What are some properties of this cause?

It can't be natural because there were no precedent events or natural existents on which the laws of physics could apply. It must also behave in a way that is not predetermined, it must have been a freely acting cause, and it must exist sans the universe.

Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible Complexity will be defined as that which “cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional [5].”
My argument is as follows:

P1) If irreducibly complex biological structures exist, then Creationism is True.
P2) Irreducibly complex biological structures exist.
C1) Therefore, Creationism is True.

P1 is true by definition.

For support of P2, I shall use the bacterial flagellum motor. It has been described as: “so breathtakingly elegant and mesmerizing that the sheer engineering brilliance of the flagella motor and, indeed, the magnitude of the challenge it brings to evolution cannot be properly appreciated… [6].

Why does it pose a problem to evolution? It has been suggested that flagellum evolved from the T3SS, but this could not be the case. The T3SS only makes up of about 25% of the flagellum and fails to account for how the main function of the flagellum, the propulsion system, evolved [7].

The last example of irreducible complexity that I will provide will be the eye. The National Center for Biotechnology Information explains the process that allows us to see,

“Upon photon capture, the chromophore isomerizes to all-trans retinal, causing a conformational change in rhodopsin and activation to meta-rhodopsin II. This initiates the process of phototransduction, a cascade of biochemical events that culminate in closure of ionic channels in the cell membrane, hyperpolarization of the photoreceptor and transmission of the signal(s) to second-order neurons in the inner retina via modulation of neurotransmitter release at the synaptic terminals. All-trans retinal is then transported to the RPE for recycling and is returned to the photoreceptor in cis form, to allow production of new chromophore molecules [8].

If any of the eye’s parts were absent, this process would not be possible, rendering us blind. So it is mistaken to think that they eye slowly evolved, because it would have been absolutely useless until it was complete. Again, the only plausible explanation for this is instantaneous and simultaneous creation of the eye and its parts.

Jesus of Nazareth

The majority of New Testament critics, religious and secular alike, have accepted the historical facts that support the proposition that Jesus was resurrected. These facts are as follows:

1. After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

This fact is important because it means that the location of Jesus’ body was known by both Jews and Christians. This would not allow the Disciples to claim that Jesus was resurrected if the tomb was not empty. Some reasons that NT scholars accept this as fact include that there is no alternative burial story. If this was a myth, there ought to be some record of what actually happened. Reason 2 is that Joseph of Arimathea is not likely to be a Christian invention. Christians were infuriated with the Jewish leadership for their role in the Jesus’ death [9]. Joseph of Arimathea was part of the Sanhedrin, so it is unlikely that Christians would invent him [10].

2. After his crucifixion, his tomb was found empty by some of his women followers.

There are a few reasons that scholars accept this as fact. One reason is that women found his grave. Women’s testimony was discounted in first Century Palestine [11]. If the writers of the Gospels were lying, they surely would have tried to make their story more reliable by sending men to “discover” the empty tomb. Furthermore, the Jewish Leaders first response to the claim that Jesus was resurrected was to claim that the disciples had stolen the body, not to point out an occupied tomb and laugh away the disciples [12]. Thus we have evidence that the tomb was empty.

3. People experienced appearances by Jesus after his crucifixion.

We have reason to believe that this is true. There are only 3 options. These people were lying, hallucinating, or they actually saw Jesus. The first option is not the most likely. It fails to explain why 10 of the disciples were martyred for their Faith. People often die for lies that they believe to be truth, but the disciples would have known if they were lying.
Another option is that everyone was hallucinating. The problem with this option that it fails to account for the physical experiences described in these accounts. After his crucifixion, he had supposedly eaten with his disciples [13]. The problem is that of simultaneous hallucination. It is immensely improbable that all of the disciples had the exact same hallucination at the exact same time. Thus the most probable explanation is that they actually saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion.

4. The disciples believed that Jesus was alive despite much evidence that he was not.

(1) their leader was crucified, and the Jews had no belief in a dying messiah. (2) according to Jewish law, Jesus' crucifixion showed that he was a heretic. Not only was their leader gone, but his death showed that the Sanhedrin had been right. Yet, the disciples were still willing to die for their belief in the Resurrection.

The question now is, "What is the best explanation for these facts?" Atheists and agnostics have no answer. The Christian however, can readily answer: "Jesus rose from the dead." C.B. McCullagh, in his book Justifying Historical Descriptions, provides 6 tests that historians use to determine the best explanation for historical facts, which the Christian's answer passes [14].

1. Great explanatory scope. Explains why Jesus' tomb was empty, why the disciples saw
after death appearances of Jesus and why Christianity grew as fast as it did.
2. Great explanatory power. Explains why Jesus' body was gone, why people saw him
alive despite seeing him crucified.
3. It is plausible. Given Jesus' unparalleled life, it is perfectly possible that divine resurrection happened.
4. It is not ad hoc or contrived. The only assumption that one needs to make is that God exists, which I have already demonstrated.
5. It is in accordance with accepted beliefs. The belief that God raised Jesus from the dead does not run afoul with the belief that people don't naturally rise from the dead.
6. It far exceeds other explanations in meeting conditions 1-5. Hypotheses like the hallucination and conspiracy hypotheses have been rejected almost universally or simply cannot provide an explanation as well as the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.










9. 1 Thessalonians 2:15



12. Matthew 28:15

13. John 21:12-14

14. C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 19
Debate Round No. 1


Kalam cosmological Argument

I don't disagree with the KCA, however it doesn't prove the existence of the god of the bible, it proves the existence of a cause of the universe.

Pool table argument

Salam Morcos should be ashamed at his argument, all it is if you simplify it and take out all of the variables waffle is 'there is a finite number of causes thus there must be a 1st cause', but you never proved that there is a finite number of causes so the pool table argument is useless.

Irreducible complexity

I am short on time so I will only address the eye example. You are assuming that each of the components of the eye evolved one by one into their current state, you never addressed the possibility of its components evolving simultaneously, different components evolving when they didn't require others, and the evolution of some will allowing for the advancement of others. It seems to me as if you didn't actually consider evolution when you made this argument.

Jesus of Nazareth

In this argument you presented no evidence for anything that you claimed, so it is useless at proving the existence of the god of the bible.


Unless you can rebut anything that I said, you have not provided any evidence of the god of the bible.

Old earth theory

When I say 6000 years I mean the age of the earth according to the bible.

P1: The earth is older than 6000 years [1].
P2: God's existence requires the earth to be 6000 years old.
C1: God doesn't exist.

The god of the bible supposedly created the earth 6000 years ago, however, the earth is 4.5 billion years old [1], therefore the god of the bible cannot exist.





I'd like to apologize to my opponent and the readers about the format. I'm typing this on my phone and it doesn't allow me to format things. So I will denote different arguments/sections like so: ==New Argument==

There is not a single argument that proves the existence of the God of any religion. Since the God of the Bible has multiple attributes, to argue for Him requires multiple arguments that add up to Him. And, as I argued, the cause of the universe must have certain attributes which theists ascribe the name "God" to.

==Pool Table Argument==
Since the only objection raised is that I didn't prove that there are a finite number of past causes, I will argue that now.

Hilbert's Hotel Paradox
1st, imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Next, imagine that all of the rooms are full. If someone shows up asking for a room, the manager says, "Sorry. We have no room." End of story.

Now, imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. Again, imagine all the rooms are full. Not 1 single vacancy. Imagine again that someone asks for a room. So the manager moves everyone up 1 room. So now the first room is unoccupied. Now that person has a room, and all the rooms are once again full. So before he showed up, all the rooms were full, and he was still able to check into the hotel.

Now imagine that an infinite number of people showed up and asked for a room. So, to make room, the manager moves the people from room 1 to room 2, from room 2 to room 4 and so on, moving every person into a room number twice the value of his original room number. Since any number doubled is even, all of the guests are now in even numbered rooms. This now opens space for everyone asking for rooms, and they move into the odd numbered rooms. In fact, the manager could do this an infinite amount of times and always accommodate an infinite amount of guest. Even though the all the rooms would already be full.

This demonstrates that the notion of an actual infinity is clearly absurd.

Furthermore, there is yet another problem with there being an infinite series of past events. Let's entertain the idea that there actually an infinite series of past events, meaning the universe never had a beginning. Supposing the time has lapsed from minus infinity means that history would have to count through a countable set of events. Given this property, no matter how many events ticked by, there would always be an infinite amount of time before we actually arrived in the present. In other words, if the past is infinite, history would never progress as there would always be an infinite amount of years to go before reaching the present. Yet the present exists, so there couldn't be in infinite series of events.

==Irreducible Complexity==
Your objection to this is ad hoc and can be dismissed via the Law of Parsimony. It seems that scientists would agree that the eye didn't evolve simultaneously and that it actually involved slight modifications [1]. So it would be your burden to argue that it evolved simultaneously.

==Jesus of Nazareth==
My opponent claims that this argument went unsupported, but I fail to see how. 4 of my 14 sources were dedicated to this argument. If you recall, I made 4 claims:

1. After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.
2. After his crucifixion, his tomb was found empty by some of his women followers.
3. People experienced appearances of Jesus after his crucifixion
4. The Disciples believed that Jesus was alive despite evidence that he wasn't.
I then provided at least 1 good reason why we should accept each as fact. I then concluded that the best explanation was the Jesus actually rose from the dead. This argument was clearly supported.

==Old Earth Theory==
Pro formulates his argument as follows:

P1: The earth is older than 6000 years.
P2: God's existence requires the earth to be 6000 years old.
C1: God doesn't exist.

Pro doesn't actually argue that the earth is old, he just cited a source that says so. That aside, the source's justification for the earth being 4.5 billion years old is that of Radiometric Dating, specifically, Uranium-Lead decay. There are, however, problems with Radiometric Dating.

Scientists make assumptions about the conditions at Time Zero. No scientist knows whether a sample contained daughter isotopes alongside parent isotopes. One example is the Mt. St. Helens eruption of 1986. Scientists assumes that there would be very low amounts of Argon-40, since it had just recently erupted. A sample from that eruption was analyzed in 1996, and dated at 350,000 years old because there was much more Argon-40 than expected [2]. A similar occurrence happened with Mt. Ngauruhoe, in New Zealand [3].

Scientists also assume that there is zero contamination. The radioactive "clock" is susceptible to contamination by way of water or lava flow. This contamination yielded a 3.908 billion year uranium-lead age on lava flows known to be less than 50 years old at Mt. Ngauruhoe [4].

The last assumption made is that the decay rate has constant been constant for billions of years. However, new evidence has come to light that suggests that the decay rate uranium is not constant. One example is the uranium decay in crystals from New Mexico. The uranium-lead age was 1.5 billion years. This same decay produced a lot of helium, but only 6000 years worth was found to have leaked out [5]. This means that the uranium-lead decay rate must have increased drastically over that 6000 year period.

That being dealt with, I will present evidence that the universe is younger than 4.5 billion years.

==Lunar Recession==
The Moon cannot come any closer than about 10,000 miles from the earth without it breaking up into rings like that of Saturn[6]. It is known the Moon is receding from the earth at a rate of about 1.5 Inches per year due to tidal interaction. It has been calculated that if time was reversed 1.4 billion years, the moon would have been touching the earth [7]. Not within the Roche Limit, but actually touching the earth. This is approximately 1/4 of the time within the Evolutionary Timescale. It is for this reason that the Earth and the Moon can be at maximum, 1.4 billion years old if the Roche Limit could be violated.

==Winding Galaxies==
The stars in our galaxy rotate around the galactic center at different speeds, with stars closer to the center revolving faster than those farther from the center [8]. If the universe was even a few hundred million years old, only a tiny fraction of the Big Bang timescale, then the universe would be a formless cluster of stars rather than a spiral [9]. This shows that our Galaxy is younger that the Big Bang model would posit, which is about 13.6 billion years [10].

On average, the Milky Way experiences 3 supernovae per century [11]. However, there is only evidence of about 200 supernovae ever occurring in our galaxy [12]. When you do the math, it comes out to be about 6700 years, which is consistent with the Biblical account.

2. S. A. Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10.3 (1996): 335"343.
3. A. A. Snelling, "The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon "Ages" for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon "Dating,"" in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. E. Walsh (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1998), pp. 503"525.
4. A. A. Snelling, "The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotopic Dating," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 285"303; Ref. 4, 2005.
5. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research; Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005); D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005).
9. Scheffler, H. and Elsasser, H., Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352-353, 401-413.
10. http:/
12. Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), pp. 175-184
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to apologize for any arguments I don't rebut, I have tons of homework and I will try to rebut them in a later round.

Kalam cosmological argument

The KCA doesn't even attempt to prove gods attributes, all it does is prove the universe has a cause.


I am only going to respond to the objection presented to my argument since providing more arguments or justification for arguments already presented would be quite unfair. Due to my opponent's busy schedule, I propose the following changes to the debate structure:
R4: Pro may present arguments if he wants. I will stick to Rebuttals and defending my arguments.
R5: Both sides rebut and crystallize their cases.

==Kalam Cosmological Argument==
Pro clearly misunderstands the argument. Yes, it proves that there is a cause of the universe. But it then analyzes what some attributes of this cause must be. These attributes are the very description of a general theistic God. Note that Pro has not actually raised any objections to my justification for any of the attributes listed. So the argument still stands.
Debate Round No. 3


Sorry, I quickly copied and pasted something in from word before I posted. It clearly didn't register. This is why it seemed as though I misunderstood the KCA.

==old earth theory==

it doesn't matter that I didn't argue that the earth is old, I didn't argue that the earth was old just as you didn't argue that time and space arose with the universe after the KCA.
I won't bother with the points against radiometric dating however I will point of Redshift and background radiation.

==My final statement==
I have chosen to forfeit this debate, not because I see rationality in Christianity (I don't) but because I have a very little chance of winning. You are clearly better than me at debating and due to my current lack of free time I haven't been able to debate very well.


Perhaps we could re-do this debate When you have some free time.

Pro forfeit. Vot Con.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ThinkBig 1 year ago
@21MolonLabe, would you care to debate this with me?
Posted by the_dark_night 1 year ago
I'll just post a short one this round however I don't mind if you post a long one.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 1 year ago
I understand. If you want, just post something like "I waive this round." And I'll do the same.
Posted by the_dark_night 1 year ago
Im really sorry I currently have a lot of homework.
Posted by Quoth 1 year ago
As an addition to BackCommander about the bacterial flagellum motor: Con also mentions the eye could not have evolved, because if any of the components were missing, it would not function and the organism would be blind. A simplified evolutionary process could explain this:
A blind organism, by random mutation, develops a small light-sensitive spot. Due to this spot, the creature can now tell night from day, open area from shaded area. Maybe giving it higher chances of survival and reproduction. In a descendant, a random mutation might cause that spot to be a bit receded compared the the other skin. Light will now cast a shadow on parts of the spot, letting the creature know which direction the light is coming from. This again can provide an advantage. And another mutation might cause the spot to recede even further, effectively creating a pinhole camera which is capable of creating images of its surroundings. And from that point on you have a functioning eye.

I would also like to comment about "The Universe began to exist."
While it is currently held as true that the universe at one point was a single point, anything before that remains a mystery. More importantly, the word "began" is troublesome because time as we know it only exists within the universe (as far as we know). So any arguments based on claims about what happened before the universe was a singularity are just conjecture and no solid conclusions can be drawn from them.
Posted by the_dark_night 1 year ago
Posted by 21MolonLabe 1 year ago
Well in my experience, it only works on computers. My other rounds won't look like that since I borrowed my brother's computer, but he goes back to college Sunday night. But when you go to type your argument, there ought to be something in the top right corner that says "text" or "rich text." You click it and it may take a few seconds to load, but the options to bold, italicize, and underline should appear at the top of the text box. From there, you just highlight you want to bold and select bold.
Posted by the_dark_night 1 year ago
How do you type in bold on this website as you did for the titles, just so I can oranise my response.
Posted by BackCommander 1 year ago
"The majority of New Testament critics, religious and secular alike, have accepted the historical facts that support the proposition that Jesus was resurrected"

The majority of critics of religion as a whole, haven't, and won't.

"P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2) The Universe began to exist.
C1) Therefore, the Universe has a cause."

Gives no credit to religion. Cause doesn't equal creation.

The Pool Table Argument also only really holds weight in a debate about the existence of a god, not in the rationality of one. Without being able to prove that this is the only universe, and that none came before it, and that a god does exist and STILL exists, your argument doesn't help with making religion rational.

"For support of P2, I shall use the bacterial flagellum motor"

Quote from one of the first ten or so results of a search to disprove this: "This is a statement often asserted by proponents of Intelligent Design, but it is simply not true. The argument goes that since the flagellum (the tail-like structure many bacteria have which helps them "swim") is a very complex machine, it could not have evolved naturally. This is because if you remove any of the proteins that make up the flagellum's motor, it can no longer function...
...the flagellum does function with fewer proteins, just not as a flagellum. Every part of the flagellum is made of proteins already in the cell, performing other functions. This is one of the most interesting aspects of Evolution: that adaptations can change roles, or combine with other adaptations to perform new roles."

I'm only commenting on this because you're in a debate about the rationality of believing in the biblical god. Proving that it's possible that a god may have existed at some point in the history of existence doesn't bolster your side. Belief in that specific god is only rational if it can be proven that he, specifically, exists in the exact way the bible describes him.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 1 year ago
Nevermind. I'll be fine for at least R1.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.