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

Does God exist?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
RonPaulConservative has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,122 times Debate No: 98735
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Con

I will argue for the non-existence of God.

My opponent will contend for the existence of God.

Burden of proof will be upon my opponent, Pro.

Structure
Round one acceptance and definitions
Round two arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument yet.
Round three rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's round two.
Round four defense, respond directly to opponent's round three.


Definition of God
"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." [0]

For all other definitions common definitions will be used unless expressed and agreed upon.

Source
0. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
RonPaulConservative

Pro

First of all, you need to define this God that you claim doesn't exist. How can I prove that it exists, or that it doesn't not exist, if I don't even know what we are proving? If I started a debate saying 'the blargeflargeh doesn't exist,' I can't prove anything because I don't know what a blargeflargeh is.

Under normal circumstances the BOP is on the Theist or Deist, and not the Agnostic or atheist, because we are the ones making a claim. But since my opponent has started a debate claiming with certainty that "god" (whatever the hell that is) doesn't exist, he not only has the responsibility to prove this, he also must provide definitions.

I would provide the definition of a being, entity, force, or other "thing," that is capable of intelligent design nd the creation of matter and energy, and which was responsible for the formtion of the universe as it is today. My opponent can either accept this definition or proide an alternate.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Con

Round two arguments

Outline
I. Round one clarification
II. Deism
A. Natural processes
B. Lack of evidence
C. Callous God if deism
III. Judeo-Christian
IV. Islam
V. Sources


I. Round one clarification

There is some confusion in round one I want to clear up first.

"First of all, you need to define this God that you claim doesn't exist." RonPaulConservative


I've already defined God in round one.

"Definition of God
"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." [0]" stupidape

"I would provide the definition of a being, entity, force, or other "thing," that is capable of intelligent design nd the creation of matter and energy, and which was responsible for the formtion of the universe as it is today. My opponent can either accept this definition or proide an alternate. " RonPaulConservative

We will use my alternative definition, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority, the supreme being.

"But since my opponent has started a debate claiming with certainty that "god" (whatever the hell that is) doesn't exist, he not only has the responsibility to prove this" RonPaulConservative


That would put an unfair burden on me since I would have to prove that unicorns don't exist.


II. Deism

Deism is by far the most difficult religion to prove, therefore I will put most of my effort into this category.

Deism definition " 1.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
[1]

Unlike the Abraham religions there is no holy book full of contradictions, moral obscenities, physical impossibilities, forgeries, mistranslations, and misspellings to help us disprove their respective God. Note, some Abrahamic religions fair better in some categories than others. For example, in the Old Testament it is claimed that the Earth is flat, about 6,000 to 10,000 years old, geocentric, and Jonah survived three days within the belly of a great fish. These are all examples of physically impossibility.

A. Natural processes

There is no religious doctrine for Deism. Instead, alternative explanations must be offered. In lieu of God creating the universe that natural processes created the universe as we know it today. Here is how many atheists perceive what occurred via natural processes.

First, the universe was formed from another universe, the multi-verse theory. Next, a big bang occurred, the Big Bang theory. Then, the solar system including Earth formed via gravity, the theory of Gravity. Afterwards, abiogenesis occurred. Following abiogenesis evolution occurred, Darwin's theory of Evolution. This is scientifically how humans arrived today.

B. Lack of evidence

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

"Absence of evidence, or the failure to observe evidence that favors a hypothesis, is evidence against that hypothesis. This is because we are significantly more likely not to see evidence for a hypothesis when it is false than not to see it when it's true — some assertions demand that the universe be screaming with supporting evidence, so when that evidence is not actually observed, it counts against it. The idea is often summarised as "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." " [2]

There is the notion that you cannot disprove a negative. That is inherently false. Think of a box of crayons containing five crayons. A person can ask for you to prove there is no red crayon. You can then show there is only five crayons and all five crayons are different colors then red, proving the negative that there is no red crayon.

The sheer number of fields that science encompasses yet has not found God is evidence of absence. Humans have searched across the face of the Earth, the clouds, the ocean, the upper atmosphere, the moon, Mars, and outer space and have not found God. Nor Heaven nor Hell. This is a huge amount of evidence of absence.

I therefore, conclude that I have met my share of the burden of proof.


C. Callous God if Deism

A deistic God would be very callous. Creating a universe and then being indifferent, this would violate the source of all moral authority part of the definition of God.

III. Judeo-Christian

Both believers of Judaism and Christianity believe in God the father, the God of the Old Testament. That the Son and the Father are the same God. Thus, any moral lapse by the father will disprove the father as the source of all moral authority.

The below quote should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God the father cannot be the source of all moral authority.

"Killed 70,000 because David had a census that he (or Satan) told him to do?

Sent a lion to kill a prophet for believing another prophet's lie, another lion to kill a man for not smiting a prophet, and some more lions to kill people that didn't fear him enough?

Killed 450 religious leaders who lost a prayer contest with Elijah and burned 102 men to death for asking Elijah to come down from his hill?

Sent two bears to rip apart 42 boys for making fun of Elisha's bald head? " [3]

Therefore, Christianity and Judaism are false religions.

IV. Islam

The Koran has more violence that the Bible statistically. [4] Also note there was a flood in the Islamic religious doctrine. The Koran flood seems just as genocidal as the Old Testament flood. [5] The God of the Islamic religion cannot be the source of all moral authority, thus is not God and Islam is a false religion.


I haven't disproved ever God that humans have imagined. Yet, I think I have more than met my burden of proof. Showing that Deism, and the Abraham religions cannot be worshiping God. I've also shown the evidence of absence via absence of evidence. Finally, I've shown alternative scientific explanations for how the universe formed and how humans arrived where we are.


V. Sources
1. http://www.dictionary.com...
2. http://rationalwiki.org...
3. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
4. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com...
5. http://www.livius.org...
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Deism only makes the claim that the universe could not have came to be how it is today by matter of chance. Therefore, we conclude that there is likely some force, or being, or "thing" that aided in its formation, as well as the formation of life on earth. To prove this, I need to demonstrate how the universe or life on earth required some form, of intelligent design to have turned out as it did.

This conclusion is founded entirely on factual, experimentally proven facts, for example; everything is caused by something- this is actualy known in physics as Newtons first law of motion; an object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an outside force, i.e. nothing "happens" without a cause, and therefore, the formation of the universe must have had a cause.

This conclusion, unlike the Big Bang Theory, is falsifiable; all my opponent has to do is provide me one example of something than can happen with literally no innitiating event or events, and my first argument falls flat.


Another argument; structure cannot come from chaos, this too is based on another fundamental law of physics called the law on entropy, which states that all organization is progressing toward chaos or randomness; that Chaos rises from order, and not the other way around. This is an experimental fact; houses do not get built on their own, but they do fall apart on their own.

It too, is falsifiable; all my opponent has to do is provide an example of order coming from randomness, or deliberate structure coming from chaos. Deliberate structure being defined as a structure showing design for a specific purpose.
An example; if my opponent woke up one morning, looked out the window, and saw his yard was covered in snow, he would not conclude that someone covered his lawn in snow. But if he worke up and saw that his lawn was covered in wrenches, he would conclude that someone put them there. This is because snow was not "made" for any specific purpose, whereas wrenches are.

"An Atheist, Theist, and Deist, walk into a bar, and start pondering over how that bar building came to be; the Atheist says 'well, clearly, during WW2, the Nazis dropped a bomb in this area, and it blew up, and thus this bar was created from the explosion.' The theist says 'that's absurd, obviously this bar was built by leprechuns!' The deist then responds 'it was built, one way or another, by a person, or group of people, with tools or with machines.'
The atheist then laughs at this and says 'a fairy tale! Everyone knows that there's no such thing as construction workers! There's no proof!' (While a team of construction workers are building another building behind him) The theist and the atheist then argue over the mutual stupidity of their respective beliefs, and the deist then says 'I don't have time for this, I have only 3 more minutes left of my lunch break."
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Con

Round three rebuttals


"Deism only makes the claim that the universe could not have came to be how it is today by matter of chance. Therefore, we conclude that there is likely some force, or being, or "thing" that aided in its formation, as well as the formation of life on earth. To prove this, I need to demonstrate how the universe or life on earth required some form, of intelligent design to have turned out as it did. " RonPaulConservative


Agreed, this sums up Deism succinctly.

"This conclusion is founded entirely on factual, experimentally proven facts, for example; everything is caused by something- this is actualy known in physics as Newtons first law of motion; an object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an outside force, i.e. nothing "happens" without a cause, and therefore, the formation of the universe must have had a cause. " RonPaulConservative


Verifying factual accuracy of Newtons first law of motion, also known as the law of inertia.

"An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

This law is often called
"the law of inertia". " [6]

Yes, this seems like the same definition. The multi-verse theory could explain scientifically how the universe was formed via natural processes in lieu of divine creation.


"This conclusion, unlike the Big Bang Theory, is falsifiable; all my opponent has to do is provide me one example of something than can happen with literally no innitiating event or events, and my first argument falls flat. " RonPaulConservative


The Big Bang Theory is falsifiable, otherwise it wouldn't be a scientific theory and would have been dismissed a long time ago. One way the Big Bang Theory could be disproved is that instead of distant galaxies moving away from us, we were moving towards them.

"Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted." [7]

Another way would be if we found out the universe was cold at the beginning, disproving a very hot explosion. Finally, an unlikely scenario, but still possible would be if aliens contacted us and claimed credit and showed convincing evidence on how they formed the galaxies.


"Another argument; structure cannot come from chaos, this too is based on another fundamental law of physics called the law on entropy, which states that all organization is progressing toward chaos or randomness; that Chaos rises from order, and not the other way around. This is an experimental fact; houses do not get built on their own, but they do fall apart on their own. " RonPaulConservative


First off, if you look at gravity you can see that spherical shapes tend to form. This is why planets and sun are spherical in shape. Entropy doesn't always equal chaos.

"Entropy Numbers for a Simple Reaction
The section about why things happen concludes by explaining that, during a reaction to form water, the system's entropy "decreases by a small amount" but the surroundings' entropy "increases by a larger amount" so for the whole universe (= system + surroundings) entropy increases."[8]


Second, entropy is more of a chemistry or physical science concept. To attempt to apply a physical science to biology is difficult. That most likely you are applying entropy incorrectly.


"It too, is falsifiable; all my opponent has to do is provide an example of order coming from randomness, or deliberate structure coming from chaos. Deliberate structure being defined as a structure showing design for a specific purpose.
An example; if my opponent woke up one morning, looked out the window, and saw his yard was covered in snow, he would not conclude that someone covered his lawn in snow. But if he worke up and saw that his lawn was covered in wrenches, he would conclude that someone put them there. This is because snow was not "made" for any specific purpose, whereas wrenches are. " RonPaulConservative

Solar system formation. A bunch of dust and gases forms into one or two suns and and a bunch of planets.

"Nebular Hypothesis:

According to this theory, the Sun and all the planets of our Solar System began as a giant cloud of molecular gas and dust. Then, about 4.57 billion years ago, something happened that caused the cloud to collapse. This could have been the result of a passing star, or shock waves from a supernova, but the end result was a gravitational collapse at the center of the cloud." [9]

"From this collapse, pockets of dust and gas began to collect into denser regions. As the denser regions pulled in more and more matter, conservation of momentum caused it to begin rotating, while increasing pressure caused it to heat up. Most of the material ended up in a ball at the center" [9]

A classic example of order from randomness. In fact, that's what natural processes are all about and this entire universe. A bunch of random events that caused the solar systems, abiogenesis, and finally evolution. An entire universe build upon randomness.


""An Atheist, Theist, and Deist, walk into a bar, and start pondering over how that bar building came to be; the Atheist says 'well, clearly, during WW2, the Nazis dropped a bomb in this area, and it blew up, and thus this bar was created from the explosion.' The theist says 'that's absurd, obviously this bar was built by leprechuns!' The deist then responds 'it was built, one way or another, by a person, or group of people, with tools or with machines.'
The atheist then laughs at this and says 'a fairy tale! Everyone knows that there's no such thing as construction workers! There's no proof!' (While a team of construction workers are building another building behind him) The theist and the atheist then argue over the mutual stupidity of their respective beliefs, and the deist then says 'I don't have time for this, I have only 3 more minutes left of my lunch break."" RonPaulConservative

While humorous, atheists tend to be logical. I doubt that an atheist would claim there was no such thing as construction workers. Furthermore, anyone could prove to the atheist that construction workers exist.


Sources
6. http://teachertech.rice.edu...
7. http://big-bang-theory.com...
8. http://www.asa3.org...
9. http://www.universetoday.com...
RonPaulConservative

Pro

NEWTONS FIRST LAW OF MOTION
My opponent hasn't responded to my argument regarding Newton's fist law of motion except by claiming that the multiverse theory is an alternate theory to the development of the universe. He hasn't yet explained how it is an alternate theory or how it refutes my argument. This is like if my opponent were to prove to me that God doesn't exist, and I only responded by saying "chipmunks, they're brown," this would not count as a rebuttal.

THE BIG BANG THEORY
My opponent claims that the Big Bang Theory is falsifiable because otherwise it wouldn't be considered a scientific theory, and would have been dismissed a long time ago. This argument is actually laughable because it assumes that, just because it is commonly accepted, that it is true, otherwise someone would have rejected it. There are many occasions in history where a false belief was commonly held to be true, and where no one rejected it, even though it was false. In addition to this, many people do reject the Big Bang theory.

Galaxies moving away from us do not prove the Big Bang; you would have to assume that the universe originated from a singularity, then, seeing that the universe is expanding, conclude that it has been expanding from a singularity. An alternative conclusion is that the universe was fully organized and expanded when it was created, and began expanding from then on up until today.

For example, if I throw an egg on the ground; its insides will begin expanding, but to conclude that this egg must have originated from a singularity, because it is expanding, is absurd. It could have, and most likely did, begin expanding from something much bigger than a singularity.

A Big Bang is not the only way the universe could have been hotter in the past. Perhaps it was created in a certain warm state, and began cooling off from there. Until someone goes back in time an whiteness the creation of the universe, we cannot prove the Big Bang, but we can conclude that it is false as per the Pauli Exclusion Principle which states that no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time; yet the Big Bang Theory consists in the idea that, at one point, all the matter in the universe occupied the same space at the same time; let alone a singularity, an infinitely small point.

THE LAW OF ENTROPY
A sphere is not an example of deliberate design, it is an example of a simply shape that could have come about on its own. If I get some mud and throw it on the ground, it will form a round blob- however, if I showed my opponent a marble sculpture, and said that I got a chunk of marble, threw it on the ground, and it naturally formed a sculpture, he would not believe me. Also, the earth is not round, it is an oddly shaped oval with flat poles and a bulging equator. {1}

My opponent claims that solar systems are an example of organization coming into existence itself, but he is automatically assuming that solar systems formed by themselves. He could claim that stars form by themselves in nebulas, but hydrogen gas isn't heavy enough to have a strong enough gravitational pull enable to form nebulas in the first place.

CITATIONS
{1}. https://www.scientificamerican.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Con

Round four defense

My opponent has broken the structure of the debate, making a defense in round three that should have been reserved for round four.

"Structure
Round one acceptance and definitions
Round two arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument yet.
Round three rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's round two.
Round four defense, respond directly to opponent's round three." stupidape


"NEWTONS FIRST LAW OF MOTION
My opponent hasn't responded to my argument regarding Newton's fist law of motion except by claiming that the multiverse theory is an alternate theory to the development of the universe. He hasn't yet explained how it is an alternate theory or how it refutes my argument. This is like if my opponent were to prove to me that God doesn't exist, and I only responded by saying "chipmunks, they're brown," this would not count as a rebuttal. " RonPaulConservative Round three

My opponent is responding to a statement I made in round three, when my opponent should have been responding to my round two.

"Yes, this seems like the same definition. The multi-verse theory could explain scientifically how the universe was formed via natural processes in lieu of divine creation. " stupidape round three.

Thus, my opponent has broken the structure and I cannot respond without being a hypocrite and breaking the structure myself. Thanks for debating.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
You should attend this debate:
Atheism- A lost reality! A hopeless, helpless cause!
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
So you made a claim and it is my responsibility to prove it, how about you go be a Muslim for a month or two to prove Islam. You wouldn't do that because you know it is a false religion, and thus it is left only to Muslims to prove it, as they are the only ones who believe it. You are the one who is lost- lost to religion. God gave you a brain, and yet you have thrown it into the garbage can. Go dig it out and start thinking.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
RonPaulConservative;
Alas we have come full circle, you were told the research was YOUR to make, not mine as I am not lost, you are.

So unless you have some question designed to help you IN your search, I'm off to help someone else. As you are on our own, till you write something that shows your searching. Bye!
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
I don't recall you giving me any facts, perhaps you thought you posted proofs for your religion but you forgot? According to the set up in your belief system, you are not saved, but spared from God on account of accepting a belief against which reason rebels. God invented the mind, and he invented it to be used- he put it in our heads so we could think for ourselves and act like intelligent individuals, not brainwashed zombies.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
RonPaulConservative;
You misunderstand my friend; I have provided you with the facts, the responsibility of investigating those facts are entirely YOURS.

Remember, I'm already saved, and HAVE a personal relationship with YOUR creator, YOUR the one who doesn't! You want to just make excuses to explain away the truths I've given you? My friend you needn't bother. This is between you and God, I've fulfilled my obligations by telling you. Your choice your consequence. So unless you need further information about God and what He can do for you.

It's okay with me if you go on about your business. I already know the truth. Your the one that's lost. So be well, and happy trails bro!
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
8. A circular observation, if I showed you a devout Christian who sinned often, you would claim that he doesn't have the 'Holy Spirit,' and thus this is unfalsifiable.

9. Another circular argument- if I found no sign that your religion, among countless others, is the true one, you would just claim that I merely ignored a revelation as a coincidence. Through the confirmation bias, only people who are extremely susceptible to suggestion or religion will detect a quote "undeniable revelation," and thus whatever occurs you can confirm your belief.

10. Perhaps I don't have time to test out the tens o thousands of religions to see if any of them are true, when all the facts I have at the moment already confirm that they are nonsense. Why should I treat your claim in "trying Jesus" any differently than claims that if you read the Qur'an in Arabic you will believe it is divinely inspired.

11. These claims of divine information are far too common to be treated with any seriousness. Muhammad claims divine revelations, so did Joseph Smith, Guru Nanak, Siddhartha, Moses, Zoroaster, Baha'u'llh, and many, many, others- everyone received a secret revelation from God, and all other revelations except that one are false. I don't have the time or the effort to sort through all of their claims, so unless you can give me some factor that distinct's your religion from some other cult, I don't know what else to tell you.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
1. Man sins, and therefor God cannot let them near him? God is omnipresent, he is no less here than he is anywhere else- if this is so, then you can't help but be in Gods presence. But if there is a specific place that only sinless people can go to that has gods presence in it, this would imply that he is not omnipresent.

2. Why would any just or rational God punish mankind for the actions of a distant ancestor of theirs, especially after supposedly saying 'The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.' (Ezekiel 18:20)

3. God demands blood enable to forgive us of our crimes against people other than him? Our offenses were committed against our fellow man, and thus we should seek the forgiveness of those we offended, not God.

4. Written where? If the penalty for sin is death as your religion teaches, then we have no hell to worry about: we are all going to die, and at the moment of our death, our "sin debt," should be paid. Yet according to you the wages of sin is Jesus's death-

5. God only has grounds to forgive our sins against him, which are virtually impossible- you cannot kill or steal from God. What you are saying is that you worship an image of human sacrifice, so that God will forgive you of your sins against others, thus excusing you from personal responsibility.

6. Freedom from personal responsibility you mean, upon the claim that God has forgiven you, you exempt yourself from your sins against others. If I steal from you, and claim that Odin has forgiven me, this amounts to nothing: it is not Odin's forgiveness I need but yours, as I would have stolen from you.

7. Christians are among the biggest sinners of all time- to claim that by accepting Jesus you can become able to commit zero sins is nonsense.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
1. Because of the sin of one man, humanity was doomed to death and separation from God, as God cannot allow anything sinful in His presence.
2. Just as we were doomed by the act of one fallen man, we were saved by the faithfulness of one man.
3. This man walked Life faithfully, without sin. As was the traditions of that day, blood must be shed for forgiveness of the people. Regular and constant shedding of blood was required for the sins of the people.
4. Just as blood was required for forgiveness of sins of the people, God created this man to be sinbearer for the human race. As it was written better that one die for all.
5. Christ was slain, hung upon a tree as a criminal that through the shedding of His blood man might be saved, one sacrifice for all. That whosoever believes on Him, shall receive the remission of sin for all time.
6. This means anyone who believes on Christ is granted eternal life free of obligation free of works, free of requirements. Christ paid the price for all.
7 those who seek Him earnestly are also given the Holy Spirit of God which, physically, emotionally and permanently changes each person for all time. It and it alone makes it possible for a sinner to stop sinning. No other human soul IS CAPABLE to stop sinning, only those who have turned their lives over to Christ Jesus. In This may a person KNOW he is saved, because the person experiences for the first time a real relationship with God.
8 you see no person who HAS the Spirit of God CAN LIVE IN SIN! It becomes humanly impossible.
this means that when God views you after acceptance of Christ , you are viewed as sinless as Christ bore your sin and paid the price in your place.

God reveals Himself to those who search for him in earnest. Ask God to reveal Himself to you. Then watch for Him, he will reveal himself in a way that is undeniable, after this, you will be left to believe what you witnessed and accept Him, or just excuse it away as merely coincidence. The choice is yo
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
@followerofchrist1955
So God is so merciful and forgiving, that he is somehow incapable of forgiving humans, despite the fact that he is omnipotent, so he is now trying to convince us to let him save us from what he is going to do to us if we do not let him save us from him.

I'm not sure what you want; if you want me to become a Christian, then you better start first making some sense. Why does God need to ave himself be tortured as a human sacrifice to himself enable to forgive humans?

Better yet, why does God need to forgive us? If I steal from you, it is your forgiveness I need, not Gods.

Threats of eternal damnation will not suffice for logic, or real sense, Muslims have told me that the way to salvation is through believing in the Qur'an, and that you will go o hell otherwise. Why don't you accept the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon? Mormons and Muslims believe in these books for the same reasons you do. Their parents told them so, and threatened them with hell.

If I told you that I'm God in the flesh and that you can either worship me or burn, you wouldn't believe me, regardless of hell. If you want to convert anyone, try making a distinction between you and every other cultic belief system that uses hell to get converts.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
RonPaulConservative

The way of eternal life through salvation in the gospels, is perhaps the most misunderstood of the present era. Largely because people in their own interpretations (a thing forbidden IN the Bible)
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.
Theologians, scholars and laypersons continue to violate this directive, is it a wonder that so many versions of the gospels exist. It is true that in the end times shall come deceiving spirits, who by cunning speech, lure man into a belief system that only relies solely on mans intellect and logic. This of course is in error, as God is so far removed from our way of thinking, as stated in scripture.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaks expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to deceitful spirits, and doctrines of demons;

Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The way of salvation is these:
Romans 10: 9-10 if you declare with your mouth "Jesus is Lord" and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Nothing more and nothing less. In this is the "Gift" of eternal life freely given to you, all requirements for salvation are done and completed in their entirety by Christ blood sacrifice ALONE. You can add nothing to or take away from this gift, it is DONE. ETERNAL life IS yours.
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.