The Instigator
Acuna00
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
CosmoJarvis
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Does the God of the Bible Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
CosmoJarvis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,587 times Debate No: 97864
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (82)
Votes (1)

 

Acuna00

Pro

I will argue that Jehovah, the God of the Bible, has given us enough evidences for us to be able to come to the most logical conclusion that He does, indeed, exist.

Round 1 is acceptance only.
CosmoJarvis

Con

Hola senorita. Tu perderas. Yo ganare.
Let's get this show on the road.
Debate Round No. 1
Acuna00

Pro

Alright, let's get started.

All things that begin have a first cause. This first cause does not have a beginning. The cause is either an intelligent creator, or unintelligent natural processes.

Being living intelligent beings, it is logical to conclude that our first cause is, Himself, alive.

Another thing to think about is how complex the universe is and how that complexity has been sustained for so long. For example, for billions of years the Earth has been at the right distance from the sun for life to be possible at a speed of about 67,000 mph while also rotating on its axis for there to be proper warming and cooling of its surface.

What's the most logical conclusion? That this order complexity that has been sustained for so long was caused by unintelligent processes, or that God is the creator of this order and complexity?

Romans 1:20 - "For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."

God has also revealed himself through the Bible, an extraordinary book. This is a perfect way to reveal himself, considering that, although it was the most attacked book in history, the Bible is the most translated and distributed book in the world and is the ancient book with the most ancient manuscripts in the original languages showing that it has been preserved for over 2,000 years.

The Bible has predicted, many times and in great detail, many important historical events centuries before they happened. Isaiah 44:27-45:2 is an example of this. Some 200 years before Cyrus was even born, his name was in the Bible, and the Bible said he would conquer Babylon, which was at the time the most powerful city in the world. If you want, on the next round I can give more examples of fulfilled Bible prophecies in the Bible.

What's the most logical conclusion? Are these detailed prophecies only coincidences, or demonstrations of the power of God?

The Bible also has science that is far ahead of its time, like every part of the water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6) which was not fully understood until about 1,600 years later by the Roman engineer Marcus Vitruvius. If you want, on the next round I can give more examples of science far ahead of its time in the Bible.

What's the most logical conclusions? Is the science far ahead of its time in the Bible also coincidnce, or a demonstration of the power of God?

As an agnostic, Con does not believe we can know whether a God exists or not, and that we can't know anything about Him if He does exist. But when you consider the evidences, you can see this is not true. God has given us enough evidences to come to the most logical conclusion that He exists, and through the Bible you can learn more about Him.

Your turn, señorita (lol), we eagerly await your response.


CosmoJarvis

Con

Well howdy hey. Now I get the stage.

Since this is a debate on whether the God of the bible exists, and you, Acuna, are the one providing the evidence, my argument shall consist of rebutals to your evidence on why the God of the bible exists.

"Being living intelligent beings, it is logical to conclude that our first cause is, Himself, alive."
Our existance may not be because of a higher power. It is believed that we exist solely on the formation of the universe, the Earth, and the evolution of single-celled organisms.

"Another thing to think about is how complex the universe is and how that complexity has been sustained for so long."
The Big Bang is likely the reason behind the conception of the universe. Newer evidence indicates this with simulations and radiation that seems to be from the Big Bang. Here's a link to a webpage describing more of the Big Bang (search under the "Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory" section): http://www.big-bang-theory.com...;

"God has also revealed himself through the Bible, an extraordinary book."
The argument of how the Bible is evidence of God seems very odd, especially in this case, where you're trying to explain why the God of the Bible exists. The Bible, I believe, is an unreliable source. Almost every religion has some sort of religious text(s) that declare that a God or Gods exist. Claiming that the Bible is prime evidence to the existance of God is like saying the Qua'ran proves that Allah exists. But not only that, but the Bible is factually inaccurate, so the probability of an all-knowing being writing a book, but also writing some factually incorrect things in it is almost ridiculous to consider. The Bible assumes that the Earth is at the center of the universe and does not orbit, and that the world is flat, and so on and so forth.

"The Bible also has science that is far ahead of its time"
As I said before previously, the bible is often factually incorrect, assuming that the Earth was round and didn't orbit around the sun.
Debate Round No. 2
Acuna00

Pro

"Our existance may not be because of a higher power. It is believed that we exist solely on the formation of the universe, the Earth, and the evolution of single-celled organisms"

I didn't deny the possibility that we are the result of unintelligent natural processes, but why should we consider that as the most logical explanation for our existence?

There is a significant difference between the complexity of living things and non living things, and a significant difference between humans and animals. Consider the chimpanzee. It is one of the smartest animals there is, and yet, you don't see them creating written language, doing art and music, or building rockets to explore space.

The evolution theory has no satisfying explanation for this. On the contrary, isn't what we observe in harmony with what the Bible says, that humans were created separately from animals and that the animals were created for our enjoyment?

"The argument of how the Bible is evidence of God seems very odd"

It's not odd at all. The Bible makes the claim that God exists, but why can we believe this claim? Because of the demonstrations of God's power that we find in the Bible.

"Claiming that the Bible is prime evidence to the existance of God is like saying the Qua'ran proves that Allah exists"

No. The Quran claims the Bible became corrupted and that the Qu'ran is the last revelation from Allah. However, it gives no evidence for this claim. On the contrary, the Bible has thousands of copies in the original languages showing it has been preserved for over 2,000 years. That's a lot more copies than the Qu'ran or any other ancient writings have. So, why should I believe Islam's claim if the evidence is against it?

"the Bible is factually inaccurate"

Con here ignores the evidences that I gave from the Bible because of supposed inaccuracies which can easily be explained. But before I talk about those supposed inaccuracies, I have a question I would like Con to answer in the next round if he can. Where exactly does the Bible say that the earth is at the center of the universe?

"the Earth... does not orbit"

Con must be referring to Psalm 104:5 which says,

Psalm 104:5 - He has founded the earth upon its established places; It will not be made to totter to time indefinite, or forever.

There is no innacuracy here. There are laws that keep the earth in the places where it has to be for life to exist, and the Earth is never going to be moved from those places or destroyed.

"the world is flat"

Isaiah 40:22
talks about the "circle of the Earth." However, the Hebrew word used in that verse can also be translated as sphere. And the Bible sometimes talks about the four corners of the Earth, but this is obviously not literal since a circle does not have corners. It is obviously referring to the four cardinal directions. So, the Bible never says the world is flat.

What it does say, however, is that the Earth is suspended above nothing (Job 26:7). Compare that to the beliefs that were common in those times like that the Earth was on top of a giant turtle.

Back to you Con.
CosmoJarvis

Con

Gosh diddly darn it. Now I have to rebute these rebuttals on my rebuttals which rebuted your statements. Damn me to hell, because I'm going to rebute these rebuttals.
Also, thanks pro, for kindly stealing my 100% original format of organizing things.

Before I rebute some of pro's ideas, I'd like to incorporate some interesting points by the commentator, Heiro:
Heiro has provided some great evidence for why he believes the Biblical God does not exist by exposing the inconsistencies of the "Biblical God."
Heiro has also added some points, which I greatly agree with, on the debating style of pro, claiming that his "evidence is null. [Acuna] state that the Bible is evidence despite the fact that God breaks his own rules all the time. He contradicts himself and places his own creations into situations where they are forced to sin," and also calls pro's argument for round 2 as "just absurd. You were picking the lowest fruit and not even bothering to go higher. Who believes that cause and effect are not related? It's a pointless argument. Low hanging fruit."

Shoutout to Heiro, a totally cool dude ;)

Alrighty, now that I'm done agreeing with people on fruit and how low they hang, I'd like to start with my third argument:

"... The evolution theory has no satisfying explanation for this. On the contrary, isn't what we observe in harmony with what the Bible says, that humans were created separately from animals and that the animals were created for our enjoyment?"
I don't mean to be rude, but I think you ought to go back to school and to biology class to understand all of this with the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution states that, gradually, organisms may react to their environment by creating "mutations." Normally, we see mutations as being things like having 6 toes on one foot, or hands growing out of someone's stomach, or any other odd thing. But mutations can also be something that an organism may develop to gain more advantages in their environment. Of course, mutations are very rare, and are oftentimes "lost," so-to-speak.
These mutations are recessive genes. If organism A, which possessed a mutation, and organism B, which didn't, frickle frackled and (boom-shaka-laka) had little babies, because mutations are normally recessive genes, the mutation from organism A might not be found in any of the babies. However, they may still possess the gene, so if they frickle frackle and boom-shaka-laka with another organism, the gene might be apparent on one of their babies.
Please keep in mind how long the process of evolution takes, so don't expect to see that the next two monkeys that frickle frackle and boom-shaka-laka will have human babies.

If the explanation above, with the theory of evolution and boom-shaka-laking wasn't enough, I'd like to introduce you to a few wise words of Ray Comfort, a totally radical dude who would burn every damned homosexual on a wooden cross in the name of God. Ray Comfort calls the banana the "athiests' nightmare."Geez, just thinking about bananas sends shivers down my spine. Ray Comfort, also known as the caped crusader, Banana Man, argues that bananas provide evidence of why we were made in God's image because bananas, because of their shape, and something about soda tabs, we can eat them well. YOU KNOW WHAT OTHER SPECIES CAN EAT BANANAS WELL AND INCORPORATES THEM AS A LARGE PART OF OUR DIET? Monkeys and apes.

I rest my case.

Con here ignores the evidences that I gave from the Bible because of supposed inaccuracies which can easily be explained. But before I talk about those supposed inaccuracies, I have a question I would like Con to answer in the next round if he can. Where exactly does the Bible say that the earth is at the center of the universe?
Ah flipper snappers! I forgot to add specific evidence for this! Here it is, buddy ol pal:
  1. NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5
    "He set the Earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
  2. Revelation 7:1
    "And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the Earth..."
    This quote shows that the Bible preached that the Earth was flat.


I'd like to conclude this argument by saying that, if you don't believe that what I'm saying is true, I can fight you in the back alley, and we'll see who's right WITH OUR FISTS
Debate Round No. 3
82 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
My dog probably wishes I would die so that she could eat all of the food in the fridge.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
Kek
Like, so many animals would so happily kill and eat our flesh.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Animals were made for our enjoyment.
Such as lions
because humans enjoy being slashed to death by a huge lion
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
While I write my other responses, I'd like to still say that the contradictions have not been fully addressed.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
Are you in favour of animals being tortured if people enjoy it?
Your reasoning leads up to it.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
"Where exactly does the Bible say that the earth is at the center of the universe?"

It doesn't.
Hence why I spoke about the church and not the Bible.

"Heirio, your vote does not consider any of these things."

It considers your arguments.
Which were poor.
Hence Con won.

"But I didn't ask for it to be removed nor do I need it to be removed."

K

"There's a lot of smart people that if they actually read the debate I know they can come to the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidences."

Because the ONLY reason ANYONE could disagree with you is because they're stupid?
You have a way with words, don't you.

"And I don't reject the possibility of us being the result of only evolution. But you are ignoring my argument, why would the evolution theory be more reasonable if it alone does not satisfyingly explain our reality?"

Your argument thus requires a hypothetical. "If it doesn't satisfyingly explain our reality."
It does.
You may not like it (probably because God isn't there), but it does explain the things it needs to.

"There is a significant difference between the complexity of living things and non living things"

Yes. So?

"and a significant difference between humans and animals."

Humans are animals.

"Consider the chimpanzee. It is one of the smartest animals there is, and yet, you don't see them creating written language, doing art and music, or building rockets to explore space."

We're smarter than chimps, therefore evolution is false?
You've missed a step.

"The evolution theory has no satisfying explanation for this."

Yes it does.
We evolved to be more intelligent.
Chimps didn't.
Bam.

"On the contrary, isn't what we observe in harmony with what the Bible says, that humans were created separately from animals and that the animals were created for our enjoyment?"

No.
Because humans are animals.
And animals aren't simply here for our enjoyment.

Are you in favour of animals being tortured if peo
Posted by Acuna00 1 year ago
Acuna00
I didn't ignore it, I knew which verses you would cite so I rebutted them before you cited them, but you still cited them anyways.

PS
Moo :P
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
That's diddly darn rude, you daft cow
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
oKAY, SO YOU IGNORED EVERYTHING I SAID IN ROUND THREE
Posted by Acuna00 1 year ago
Acuna00
And I don't say it because of bias. I just don't believe Cosmo's arguments were convincing, he made a false accusation against the Bible saying that it says the Earth is in the center of the universe, and he ignored the refutations I gave of the supposed Bible inaccuracies.

So in an atheist's position, even if I didn't agree with Pro, taking these things into consideration I would've voted for Pro or at least say it was a tie. But he can vote however he wants.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
Acuna00CosmoJarvisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.