The Instigator
Justin_Chains
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrCarroll
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Biblical truth is false.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,652 times Debate No: 15829
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Justin_Chains

Pro

In contrary to most religious beliefs.. Humans have existed for well over 100,000 years. Fossil hunters in Africa have unearthed human bones that are more than 160,000 years old ( http://www.npr.org...). Many ancient cultures and tribes provide us with a strong case of existence before the bible tells us of Adam and Eve. This evidence comes in the form of tools, bones, structures, art, and various other artifacts. The age of this evidence is proven by the science of man and the only argument for disproval would be that science is wrong. But science and biblical history rarely agree. So, if you believe the bible is Truth... Then any case where science disagrees with biblical information, you are forced to take the side of the bible. And if you choose to take sides with whatever information benefits your personal views.. Then you do not believe in Biblical truth.

In order for something to become truth it has to have evidence that proves it to be true. The bible is a book. A book filled with words that prove very little to be true. At best it sounds like a great book of guidance, written by a wise human or a group of humans. At worst it sounds like a fictional book filled with rules, stories, and narrow minded morality lessons.

I would like to add one more thing... How does the bible explain Dinosaurs? If you tell me that you believe in Biblical truth... Then you cannot believe in Dinosaurs.

So how about we go to the museum and I can show you evidence to prove my argument?
MrCarroll

Con

In Pro's opening argument, there are many incorrect conclusions presented.

I. The age of the man and earth
This itself is subject to debate mainly between creationists and evolutionists. Here I think we should consider the "young earth" theory, which you assume the Bible states. In fact, it nowhere says the earth is 6,000 years old, that is what some scholars have calculated assuming there were no gaps between genealogies and assuming the creation account was entirely literal. Still, I will defend this young earth view or rather its plausibility for the moment.
Secular science, what you call the "science of man" has come to conclusions on ages based on evolution and radiometric dating. The first, evolution, while by far the most popular theory in science is not without its problems. The main problem is that no one can actually observe evolution on a grand scale occurring. In addition, it is merely a theory. A more reasonable reason that the earth is judged 4 billion years old would be radiometric dating, which is based on measuring the decay of naturally occurring isotopes. However, since you stress the importance of proof, we must consider the three assumptions of radiometric dating.
(1) That the rate of decay of the parent has been constant over time
(2) That the rock or mineral contained a known amount of daughter in the beginning
(3) That the amounts of parent and daughter have not been altered during the history of the rock or mineral except by radioactive decay [1]
In order for a date to be proven without a doubt, each of these points must be already certain. The point is, when considering past events that were unobserved, they cannot be proven. There is signifigant evidence that this man found in Africa was 160,000, yet since you weren't there 160,000 years ago, you can't prove it.
Again, from a young earth perspective, if it cannot be proven without a doubt that man is over 160,000 years old, then the alternative is possible. This means, man might just be 6,000 years old. But I don't believe this, which brings me to the next point, your assumptions about the Bible.

II. Science and the Bible
"science and biblical history rarely agree." This is all based on Pro's assumption on Biblical inerrancy, Biblical literalism, and taking the Bible out of context. Your whole argument is based solely on the literalist's view of the Bible. Your opening sentence: "In contrary to most religious beliefs" shows a lack of knowledge. Where in the Bible does it claim the age of the earth? It only claims the manner in which it was created and a number of historical events that aren't generally dated. There are thousands of Biblical interpretations, some using secular science itself. Many people believe that evolution and scripture are perfectly compatible.
"In order for something to become truth it has to have evidence that proves it to be true." Now let's consider the main argument here. It is not my job to prove the Bible is true, but rather your job to prove it is false. I do not believe in the Bible because it was proven true, rather I believe in the Bible because it makes the most sense. Now Pro has the difficult task of proving the Bible false and incoherent with science.
"The bible is a book. A book filled with words that prove very little to be true." Now this whole ramble does nothing for the debate unless Pro finds sources and examples for this.
Pro's job is now to start presenting some real arguments that show the Bible is false, unscientific, untrue, etc.

[1] Garner, Paul. The New Creationism. Evangelical Press 2009.
Debate Round No. 1
Justin_Chains

Pro

I agree with con's statement that some of my argument is based off of assumptions. I have been raised around people who believe in Biblical truth. I state this only because they present it to be the only truth or fact in life, without giving any evidence to prove that it is the truth or fact at all. So, we must bring this argument to it's most raw simplistic form, before we can resolve the topic.

If something is true then it is a fact that it is the truth. This can be proven through evidence or it would not be the truth or fact, it would just be a claim or theory.

2+2=4 Truth/Fact
The earth is round=Fact
Fire is hot=Fact

These examples can all be proven. These examples are real truth.

The topic is "Biblical truth is false". Con does a good job of tearing down the information I present in support of my view. But gives none to support his own. I have given widely accepted views for dating history. And even if I were to agree with you.. Even if I was to say that no amount scientific evidence could could make historical aging accuracy a fact, unless I was there.. It still does not make the bible any more true than Lord of the Rings or Moby Dick. You can choose to believe it because it makes sense to you..

But choosing to believe something does not make it the truth, it makes it a belief.

You believe in the bible, as do many people. But none of this makes it the truth.

Any information written or spoken, being presented as truth or fact, is not truth or fact without question until proven false.

Any information written or spoken, being presented as truth or fact, is in question until the information is proven as truth or fact through evidence.

I am not stating any information to be true. Therefor I need no evidence to support my information. I am stating that the information in the bible cannot be the truth, until it is proven as truth or fact. And since this cannot be done, the information in the bible must be in question until it is proven true. So if it is not true, then it is false.

Belief has nothing to do with anything being actually true. I can believe with all my heart and soul that I came from aliens instead of god (although I do not believe this). Or I could believe that the novel I just read was the telling of true real life people, because the author said so, with no evidence. Or I can believe anything that anybody has ever said or written down. But none of these things can be accepted as true just because I believe them to be so. There must be proof for something to be true or it is logically false.

My topic stands as a correct statement, because no matter what Con believes, Con cannot claim the bible as truth without proving it to be true.
MrCarroll

Con

Remember what we are debating, "Biblical truth is false." It is not my job to prove Biblical truth, rather I am merely defending it as not being false. It is on Pro to prove Biblical truth is false.

"I am stating that the information in the bible cannot be the truth, until it is proven as truth or fact. And since this cannot be done, the information in the bible must be in question until it is proven true. So if it is not true, then it is false."
Pro's makes a major flaw by saying that something "cannot be the truth, until it is proven as truth or fact." This is a completely false statement. Did the planets revolve around the sun before it was proven that they did? We could come to tons of false conclusions from this statement. So just because we cannot prove the Bible to be true does not mean it is false.
It turns out that Christians BELIEVE or have faith that the Bible is true. Christians, like everyone else, base their beliefs on assumptions. Notice that everyone bases their worldview on certain assumptions. For example, we might assume that everything around us is not simply a projection and illusion. The fact is, there are plenty of things that cannot be proven yet people have faith with good reason that they are true. Likewise I believe with good reason that the Bible is true. But while I may not be able to prove the Bible as true, it is possible for you to prove the Bible false. Pro mentions novels that are fictional. There are obvious reasons that the events in those novels are false, the authors say so. Pro must show how the Bible is false, and there has been no such argument except a fallacious one.
Debate Round No. 2
Justin_Chains

Pro

The point here is exactly what pro stated. Biblical information is not truth, yet it is not false. The biblical information is in question. So the wording of my statement was flawed.. I award pro this much.

Biblical truth cannot be truth unless it is proven to be true.

Therefore, Biblical truth is not truth and Biblical truth is not false. So, the term "BIBLICAL TRUTH" in itself is false, because the information in the bible cannot be "truth" or "false", unless proven to be so.

"Biblical Information" = "Biblical Truth" How? In what way does this equal truth?

In this way, the term "Biblical Truth" is false by default because it cannot be truly defined as such.

So, the term "Biblical Truth" is making a claim through the very definition of it's words. And through the definition of it's words it's claim is false. Not because it is not possible for it to be true at all.. But because it is in question. It is not been proven to be true, nor has it been proven to be false. So making the claim to be truth or falsehood.. As in the term "Biblical Truth" is false by it's very definition.

My statement could be worded better... But still stands to be true in essence.

And I would like to thank you Pro for taking on my debate. I respect your view... And I look forward to your response.
MrCarroll

Con

Pro has presented a shallow argument. "The point here is exactly what pro stated. Biblical information is not truth, yet it is not false." I never stated that Biblical information is not truth.
"Biblical truth cannot be truth unless it is proven to be true." This is a re-wording of Pro's previous argument and is still a fallacy. Something CAN be true without being proven to be true. Answer this: is science truth? Science books are the unbeliever's bibles which the atheists cling to with their very lives, but can science be proven scientifically?
Again, when taking the Bible to be truth, one is making assumptions: the people writing this book are inspired by God, but this is nothing new. Like I said, there are countless assumptions and people, no matter what they believe, are forced to have faith that these assumptions are true.

"So, the term 'Biblical Truth' is making a claim through the very definition of it's words." When Christians claim that the Bible is truth, it is because they have (1) read the bible, (2) God has revealed himself to them, and then (3) they have considered the alternatives. If you read the Bible, the you must come to one of three conclusions, either the people writing it were all mad, they were lying, or they were telling the truth. I suppose they could be mad, but the writing seems too exquisitely sane. They may have been lying, but why would they make up commandments and ideas that did nothing to benefit them? The ideas presented in the Bible are so against human nature. Loving enemies makes absolutely no sense from a human perspective. In the Koran for example, you see ideas that are much more human such as getting 50 virgins when you get to heaven. That in itself tells you a lot about the writer. So probably the best option of the three would be to conclude that those writing the Bible were telling the truth.
God will also reveal himself to humans, and I don't mean Jesus and a few of his angel friends show up in your house one sunday afternoon. Then we can also consider alternative ideas such as no god or many gods or maybe we are god. Taking a look at nature, the universe and its complexity, and human nature we may come to the conclusion that the Bible is correct because what is in the book makes the more sense than anything else. In the end, Christians can themselves be certain of Biblical truth without every proving it to be truth scientifically. It is being "certain of what we do not see." [1]
What I have just presented is why Christians say the Bible is truth. So although I cannot prove it scientifically, I now believe without a doubt that the Bible is truth. This is why Christians will tell others that the Bible is truth, but it's really up to them to figure out for themselves, and in the end one view or the other will be proven true.

I have shown Pro's argument fallacious and shown why Christians claim the Bible as truth. It is up to Pro to prove the Bible is a false book, and Pro cannot do so by claiming that it cannot be scientifically proven as many things cannot be scientifically proven. So far, Pro has given no evidence that what the Bible claims is false.

Should we save Round 5 for conclusions? It's up to you.

[1] Hebrews 11:1
Debate Round No. 3
Justin_Chains

Pro

Con makes a lot of assumptions in round 3 of his argument. I feel I must state that when dealing with the subject of proving something to be true or false, it makes for a weak case by bring assumptions to the table. In error, I have regrettably made a couple myself during this debate. But I have based the bulk of my argument off of scientific fact, logic, and/or reasoning.

First I would like Con to understand that it is not that I believe the bible to be false. I believe the bible's to be in question as we have both agreed. But, me and/or a group of people can write a book, call it "The Zexus" for example, fill it with world creation, moral stories of life, moral lessons, guidelines or rules to follow, etc.

Now what if I took "The Zexus" and hid it in a remote, but important place? What if in 300 years it is found and taken as the word of God, only because it says so on the inside.

Or what if I say that God came to me today and told me to write His words down and call the book "The Zexus". I would gain some believers, which could turn into more believers, which could cascade into a religious revolution.

Such is what happens to Paganism, because of Christianity during the centuries of the Roman empire. If you look at the history of the religion and the book itself.. There is reason for question. But if you raise the argument that nothing can be proven true unless you are there, well then you cannot prove many things accepted as fact.

All of this is to open Cons eyes to my views and questions, but this get's me quite off topic.

"Biblical Truth" by it's very nature is claiming in itself to be true. By labeling itself biblical "TRUTH" it is claiming to be the truth. But cannot give any evidence at all to support it's claim.

Just because we were not there to review and judge the information, does not make the information automatically in question.

My argument better explained is this. To the believers in "Biblical Truth"... Who say that "Biblical Truth is the only real truth... You are false in your claim.

The fact is that ALL truth is in question. All things claiming to be true, must first be accepted by someone's personal belief's before it can be the truth for them. All truth can only be personal truth, if you believe it... It is true. Atleast in your reality it is.

And that is all we can live through for determining what is right and wrong, true and false, is through our personal beliefs and what is accepted in our personal realities.

That is a gift of God.. Nomatter what book you believe or don't believe... It is an epic gift.

So, due to the wording in my topic being flawed in reflection of my actual stance on the subject....

I admit defeat to Con.

Thank you for your time Con. It has been an inspiring debate.

Yes, we can have our conclusions in round 5 if you wish.
MrCarroll

Con

Hey, thanks for putting up the debate.

A few thoughts: I don't think your example of writing "The Zexus" is the same case we have as the Bible. You see, the Bible was mostly written as a historical and factual book. It is the history of God's people inspired by God Himself. This also wasn't some book that God appeared to the writer and directly commanded to be written down (with the exception of Revelation, hence the name). That was Mormonism.
I understand that if a Christian says the Bible is "truth" (which "Biblical truth" is not an actual term as far as I know) there should be reason to say so. I gave the main reasons in my last argument. But the fact is, you cannot prove the Christian claim to be false, which is still what you would have to do in order to win.
When reading your arguments I am getting a little understanding of your beliefs. You seem to suggest there are many "personal realities" rather than one true reality. This is where we differ, for in your view we would have contradicting realities which doesn't make much sense. Christians do in fact believe there is one truth and one reality, and this seems like something you don't believe in, I may be wrong or exaggerating on what I read.

Since its over, there's not much point in continuing to debate, but if you have more thoughts you would like to share I'd like to here them. Thanks again mate.
Debate Round No. 4
Justin_Chains

Pro

You are correct when you state that my beliefs are.."There are many personal realities instead of one true reality". I am happy to hear that you are understanding towards my point of view and I thank you very much for your mature demeanor and pleasant arguments. Maybe I will create a new debate on personal realities v.s. one true reality in the future. It could be a great debate... But neither side can be proven without doubt in my opinion.

Thank you for your time, thoughts, and views Con.
MrCarroll

Con

I might be interested in such a debate. Until we meet again.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Justin_Chains 6 years ago
Justin_Chains
I appreciate all of your comments. I see now that the information I gave in support of my view was not relevant or influential in supporting my actual topic. I have re-routed my argument to support the reasoning behind my topic.

Thank you for your interest in my debate.

- Justin Chains -
Posted by twsurber 6 years ago
twsurber
He is also assuming "All things constant" which has not been proven by science.

In essence this debate sounds like a trap for theists. Faith is evidence of the things unseen, thus cannot be proven in a debate any more than scientifical matters depends upon imperfect human reasoning.
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
I thought he was trying to refer to young earth creationism, but he said how does the Bible "explain" dinosaurs which confused me, and someone cant just assume all Christians are young earth creationists. But your probably right in what he really was getting at.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Cirrk I think he's saying that dinosaurs existed before the bible claims the Earth began, not that the bible simply didnt mention them.
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
phantom
If this was 1 month from now I would take this debate, as this is one of my favorite topics. But I'm to busy unfortunately.
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
You implemented a pretty abusive framework. Your Rd 1 suggests anything that the bible excludes is considered a proof of its invalidity. Plus, contextual truth exists as well.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Justin_ChainsMrCarrollTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Shifted BOP and stated the following, "Vote con" so therefore, I am voting con.
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
Justin_ChainsMrCarrollTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Don't Shift BoP.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Justin_ChainsMrCarrollTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made an argument, instigated a debate and then after open shifted the BoP.