Bible is a work of fiction
Debate Rounds (4)
Wikipedia states "Fiction is the form of any work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not real, but rather, imaginary and theoretical" and that is what the bible sounds like to me.
As this is an exploration of religion and a strive for understanding, 1st round may be used by the Con to make a statement and in fact may even have an extra round to get his/her point across.
Just from the beginning, how the heaven and the earth were created by god in 6 days. Even if that was believable, how did god create day and night and light before he created the sun? What was there before he created these things? How long was he standing or floating there before he decided to create these things? Who created god? Why do creationists insist that the idea of an eternal universe seem so unbelievable because it defies laws of thermodynamics but find it absolutely believable that there is a man-like being out there who oversees and overhears everything for eternity? But most importantly, if this is a historical narrative, who was witnessing this and writing it down?
Next there is Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. There was a perfect garden which had one tree which they weren"t supposed to eat from" Why was it there in the first place? What kind of fruit grew on it that makes people get shy? And what the hell is up with the talking snake?
I can go on and on with these stories" but they just sound like The Hobbit or Narnia or whatever so why should I or anyone for that matter believe that the bible is based on historical events?
First when the bible talks about the earth being made in seven days it could be speaking metaphorically. This is especially likely with the first four days due to the fact that, according to Genesis 1, God didn't create the sun till day four. Also in the same chapter it hints that the earth as we know it didn't even exist when it said that "the earth was without form. Now God could have straight up said the earth never existed till he made it. But it's original readers would have been confused. As for day and night, as far as I know there is not a theory for that. As I said before lots of the stuff in the bible is faith based. As for what was there before, it would be the same thing that is at the ends of our universe. Absolutely nothing.
The Bible does not say what created God. In fact it says that God is forever. It also hints that God is not of this universe meaning that time as we know it doesn't effect him. I personally am not a stereotypical creationist so I have no idea why they believe what they believe. But my objection to an eternal universe is the fact that the universe is expanding. So all you have to do is subtract how the edge is expanding each year from the the radius and you get the year the universe was created if the universe moved at a uniform rate.
Now to the Garden of Eden, in short the reason God put that tree into the garden was because he needed the ability to give humans a choice due to his narcissistic nature. The first hint of evil in the bible is when God created angels. He created a certain angel named Lucifer. Now Lucifer was the most beautiful of the angels and was very influential. Then the power went to his head and he tried to lead a rebellion to overthrow God. When he failed he got sent to earth. God needed the tree so that humans would have a choice between Gods way or there way. As for the fruit that's faith based though tradition says they were supernatural apples. The serpent (not snake) was Lucifer in a certain form.
The reason that people can believe that the bible is historical facts is the simple fact that the bible has never been proven wrong. Now lots of people like to point out the facts that defy logic but as I have said before God is supernatural and some things in the bible are metaphors. Now my question for you is why wouldn't you believe in the bible. According to Bayes' Theory there is a 67% chance that God exists. While there is a 2.41e^-179% chance that ribozymes would evolve the way that they did. This means if in fact you were to die you would most likely have to face some sort of Heaven and Hell.
I believe that the earth"s molten core was proven a while back by studying the movements of seismic activity but that"s beside the point though. I would like to point out that "The reason that people can believe that the bible is historical facts is the simple fact that the bible has never been proven wrong" is not a sufficient enough argument. Using science to explain the parts [which are very few] that can be explained while dismissing the rest as magic, supernatural, and metaphorical really does not help. It is as if I was arguing that Harry Potter is non-fiction and that the wizard world indeed does exist. How can you prove me or JK Rowling wrong if we both claimed that it is true and that whatever you can"t believe is because the wizards are magic and you won"t understand it? Rowling has obviously stated that she is writing the book etc. so we accept that work as fiction. However, if we were in lesser times when people did not have access to information, most knowledge came from whatever the monarch says is true, I believe there might be a lot of people who would use that gullibility of humans to exert power over them.
There was a claim that religion was created and enforced by the leaders of states to rule over people because using fear of a higher being was a lot cheaper and simpler than training and raising the upkeep of a policing force which would make sense in a primitive world. We now have the means of overseeing the general public through surveillance cameras and an adequate police force basically making religion obsolete.
This brings up more questions like "who actually wrote the bible?". My research tells me it was Moses and a few people who contributed here and there. But let"s say Moses DID in fact write the bible and that these are the words of god. God must have communicated with Moses in one way. I would picture Moses writing down what the voice in his head was saying much like Ms.Rowling when she writes her novels I would assume. If god threw down a book onto Moses, why did Moses have to rewrite it himself?
As for your Bayes theorem, if I"m not mistaken, that would be the only theorem that might give god a higher chance than evolution [I would like to see the calculation on this by the way]. However, this is due to the fact that Bayes theorem itself relies on beliefs. Evolutionists leave any option open as possibility where as creationism has one option and it believes that THAT option is indeed the end of story. Therefore you can see why I would not take this theorem seriously in this case.
13millerd forfeited this round.
However, I do realize that Moses was the one who communicated with god through a burning bush... which I believe even people today sometimes do... when the bush looks like this: http://farm2.static.flickr.com...
13millerd forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were stronger than Con's single attempt at half cocked rebuttal, but Con dipped out and also gave Pro a conduct point.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.