The Instigator
Fundamental-freewill
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
gomergcc
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Does the God of the Bible exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
gomergcc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 687 times Debate No: 66162
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

Fundamental-freewill

Pro

Absolute certain knowledge is only possible with the existence of the biblical God. There is a classical question. How do I know I exist? A famous philosopher said 'I think therefore I am'. My opponent my agree that to question existence presupposes existence. How do we know this is correct reasoning. Anything objection made I could counter by asking "how do you know this is correct reasoning." The only way to know one's reasoning is correct is to know everything about logic and philosophy. Attaining perfect knowledge about logic and philosophy is impossible unless you are God who knows everything. I can know that I am reasoning correctly because the God who knows everything pre-programmed all human beings with the basic knowledge of reasoning. Without God nobody can know they exist because unless they presuppose the bible God they can't know if there are reasoning correctly.

Science is not possible without the God of the bible. When any scientist makes an observation in nature he or she assumes the uniformity of nature or that past observations in nature are going to be the same as observations in the future. For example, If scientific discover 211.9F degrees why or how could they ever expect water to boil at 211.9F degrees tomorrow or the next day or a thousand years from now. Some might say of course we can expect future experiments to be consistent with past experiments because they always have been consistent before. As we can see this is begging the question. It is impossible to base an assumption that nature behaviors in a predictable way without also assuming that a God of the universe organizes the universe in a way that is always consistent.

objective Morality is impossible without the God of the bible. Some may argue that the biblical God does some evil acts like sending people to hell or destroying civilizations, but by what standard could anyone call anything morally right or wrong without God. One could assert that Majority opinion makes up objective morality, but this is not really objective if it depends on majority opinion. The majority of people in Nazi Germany believed it was moral to murder mass amounts of Jews but it was never up to them to decade. God is the standard of objective morality not Man.

I ague not the existence of God but that everyone already knows the existence of God. The problem is not about belief or unbelief but of acceptance or rejection. My opponent absolutely believes in the God of the bible because without it he can't know anything to be true since he would have to know everything to know he can't be wrong about anything and know somethings for certain.
gomergcc

Con


I argue that the God or God's of any religion are just a likely to be real. That we can't know for sure one way or other. There may be no God. We can not prove it one way or another it is a matter of faith.



Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.




“Science is not possible without the God of the bible. When any scientist makes an observation in nature he or she assumes the uniformity of nature or that past observations in nature are going to be the same as observations in the future” “It is impossible to base an assumption that nature behaviors in a predictable way without also assuming that a God of the universe organizes the universe in a way that is always consistent.”



Yes but the bible states that flat out that the universe is not organized in a way that is always consistent. The bible states the following are not consistent:



The speed of light: There are stars that would have to have created before the bible states they were or the speed of light would have had to been changed.



Water pressure/water flow rates/ and fluid dynamics: To part the read sea they would all have to be radically changed.



Gravity/ Mass/ and energy: To walk on water Jesus's gravity would have had to change. This would change his mass and how much energy he was made up of. That or do it to the water to make it more dense and allow it to be walked on. All this with out effecting anything around the event. When scientist do this kind of change with only a small amount of material the energy released is massive.




“objective Morality is impossible without the God of the bible. Some may argue that the biblical God does some evil acts like sending people to hell or destroying civilizations, but by what standard could anyone call anything morally right or wrong without God. One could assert that Majority opinion makes up objective morality, but this is not really objective if it depends on majority opinion. The majority of people in Nazi Germany believed it was moral to murder mass amounts of Jews but it was never up to them to decade. God is the standard of objective morality not Man.”



Morality predates the bible. I remind my opponent that most of the bible's morality comes the Tanach and the bible only contains the Torah witch is 5 of the 24 books of Jewish scripture that Christians call the old testament. Also that the Torah has 613 commandments and not just 10.



“I ague not the existence of God but that everyone already knows the existence of God. The problem is not about belief or unbelief but of acceptance or rejection. My opponent absolutely believes in the God of the bible because without it he can't know anything to be true since he would have to know everything to know he can't be wrong about anything and know somethings for certain.”



This goes now way to show that it is the God of the bible. While I do believe in God my God is way more powerful than the bible allows. My God does not break the laws that God created buy works with in these laws. My God spent billions of years to make us. To make many life forms all over the universe. My God dose not tell people its OK to go attack other people, that there only crime is being born is the wrong location, like the God of the bible does. My God loves all people and tries to show them faith. Personally if the God of the bible is the real God I am going to have some huge problems with God. I would rather spend my after life with the innocent children of Jericho, in hell, that Joshua and his army killed then be in a heaven like that




I challenge my opponent to show any reason why it can only be the God of the bible. For them to show that out of the over 50 different English versions of the bible what one they are say is the correct one, and why.



It is simply easier on my side of the debate to point out that Christians don't agree on what the bible is, what the bible says, or who God is. There is at least 40 different Christian religions that all disagree.


Debate Round No. 1
Fundamental-freewill

Pro

So what you did is Reject the God you know exist and replace it with a different god of your own imagination. Your "god" could not be the source of truth or knowledge because he did not exist before you were born because you can't imagine a "god" before you were born. Knowledge and truth, and morality existed before the existence of the universe and differently before your existence. The God of the bible was worshiped since the beginning of time. Judaism is the earliest belief system held in human history. The God of the bible created us not the other way around.
gomergcc

Con

I agian ask what bible my opponent means. I remind my opponent that there is 40 differant bibles all saying something differant. That since they believe Judaism's Tanach to be be the word of God then how is the bible correct when it is missing 19 books of the word of God.
Debate Round No. 2
Fundamental-freewill

Pro

This is not a debate about Bible translations because that is a whole other debate. We don't reason to the bible but without biblical truths we can't reason at all. God exists therefore we have absolute truth not that absolute truth exists therefore God. Since this is a question that you find necessary to be answered even tho I find it irreverent I will answer it anyways. The attempt to translate the bible from Hebrew and Greek into English was ordered by King James of England in 1604 to create the first bible in the English language. By 1611 The first translation of the bible the "King James version" was actualized. There are very important reasons why only the King James version is the only acceptable bible. First this bible version was created almost 400 hundred years ago which made it impossibility of any bi ist because most Christian position we have today did not exist back then for example, Methodism,and the Jehovah witnesses did not come into about before the 18, and 19 century. I strongly recommend watching "NEW WORLD ORDER BIBLE VERSIONS" By Steven L Anderson if you want great and in depth arguments why the King James Version is superior than compensatory versions and you can watch the video for free on youtube here as I post the link. ===> http://youtu.be... <===

I don't believe The Tanach to be the world of God. As a Jewdeo-christian I believe the Old testament and the New testament to be the only true word of God. For the reliability of the Tanach as the world of God is something I would debate with a Jew who claims it is the world of God not a non Jew who would not even agree that it is the word of God, And it is totally irrelevant to this debate. You have no basis to make truth claims without the God of the bible anyways.

Lets get to the point at hand. You made many knowledge claims in this debate. For example you claimed that there are 40 different English Translation of the bible and made a truth claim about the God of the bibles morality. You made a few scientific related claims about Jesus walking on water. But what is your evidence to prove that absolute truth exists in your world view. How do you know that you even exist or that you reasoned correctly on a daily basis. How do you know if you can or cannot walk on water tomorrow on your swimming pool. By what standard to you call God immoral who says that damning people who reject him is wrong in your world view. Your world view is like thin air as in there is no standard to which you make all these truth claims. The God of the Bible is my standard and it is the God we both know exists. God exists so absolutes also exist with an absolute God. Absolute morality makes sense in my worldview because God revealed himself in a way that I know his character. In fact he wrote his law in my heart and that is how I know that lying is wrong because God can't lie. I know that my reasoning is correct when it comes to certain things because God pre-programmed me with knowledge of how he thinks. I know that the past will be like the future because I know God created a universe I can understand with my finite mind. Only God can give absolute knowledge because only God knows everything. To know my reasoning is correct I would have to know everything about philosophy OR a God that does could lend me that information. To know that I never walked on water before so I know I won't be able to walk on water in the future is only possible if I know that God organized the universe in a way where I know laws of science do not change. Objective Morality is only possible from the God of the bible because when It comes to what is right and what is wrong because people make contradictory claims with one another about morality. One person may say it is ok to murder 3 mouth old babies and another one could claim that it is wrong to murder new born babies.
gomergcc

Con

My opponent as misunderstood my request a them to define there usage of the word bible. In is impossible for my side to understand what they are talking about with out this information.

For factual sake I will remind my opponent the King James version of the bible is not the first English bible. That the William Tyndale’s, Coverdale Bible, the Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops’ Bible all are English bibles that predate the King James version of the bible.

My opponent then states that they don't be Tanach to be the word of God and then in the next sentence states that they believe parts of it to be. My opponent has failed to understand that the old testament is part of the Tanach. There is some changes such as how many commandments Moses brought from mount Sinai. My opponent as fail to understand that this was a challenge that all morality comes from the bible. It is clear that at least some morality comes from the Tanach.

My opponent has again stated that we know the past will be like the present and future because of the God of the bible. My opponent as failed to answer the fundamental question of why they hold that to be true when the bible clearly states that is not true. The bible clearly states that if I have faith I will be able to walk on water, part oceans, move mountains, or reanimate dead bodies. I have not stated they are not possible, that would be an attack of spirituality it self, but have only shown that that would contradict how science sees the world.

I have a 1 year old son. My son can't talk yet but already know some objective morality. He knows when he is doing something he shouldn't do and will try to cover his eyes in a clear sign of his shame of doing something wrong. I would agree with my opponent that God is inside him, that God has shown him what is right and wrong, and that he feels in what you might call his heart. I disagree with my opponent that it has too be the God from the bible. There are many thing that feel wrong deep down in side of me that the bible states is OK. There is many people that come to God and to the same objective morality with out the bible. We all understand things differently. Is it not more of a testament to the gloy of God that God as given humany so many way to understand God.
Debate Round No. 3
Fundamental-freewill

Pro

This is not a debate about Which Bible translation is the best one to use. This is a debate about the existence of the bible God.

The Term is "Tanakh" which refers to the writings of the old testament not "Tanach" as my opponent uses. The spelling is what confused me.I have no idea what a "Tanach" is so I assumed it was something that was made up a few years ago. The way you are wording your arguments are intellectually dishonest and you use them as a distractions with combination of Red haring Fallacies and stating facts incorrectly to avoid answering my questions about your world view.
The Following are claims you made without giving me any reason or evidence for me to believe that they are true and that you are not just be making these facts up. I am going to quote what you said in quotation marks and underneath my opponents quote write my own questions about the quotes in parentheses
1) "I remind my opponent that there is 40 differant bibles all saying something differant."
( How do you know there are 40 different bibles that say something different?)

2) "That since they believe Judaism's Tanach to be be the word of God then how is the bible correct when it is missing 19 books of the word of God."
( How do you know the bible is missing 19 books ?)
3) "for factual sake I will remind my opponent the King James version of the bible is not the first English bible. That the William Tyndale"s, Coverdale Bible, the Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops" Bible all are English bibles that predate the King James version of the bible."
(Why should I believe that the bible translations you mention are older than the King James version and how do you know that to be true?)

4) "There is some changes such as how many commandments Moses brought from mount Sinai. My opponent as fail to understand that this was a challenge that all morality comes from the bible. It is clear that at least some morality comes from the Tanach."
(How do you know that there are changes of how many commandments moses brought down from mount Sinai?)

5) "my opponent has again stated that we know the past will be like the present and future because of the God of the bible. My opponent as failed to answer the fundamental question of why they hold that to be true when the bible clearly states that is not true. The bible clearly states that if I have faith I will be able to walk on water, part oceans, move mountains, or reanimate dead bodies. I have not stated they are not possible, that would be an attack of spirituality it self, but have only shown that that would contradict how science sees the world."

( How do you know that the bible states that and it is not ture? What verse does it say that if you have faith those miracles will happen? how do you know that those miracles have not happen in the past or won't happen in the future for Christians. How do you know it is not possible for those miracles to not happen within science.)

Fallacy - "but have only shown that that would contradict how science sees the world."
Right here you committed a Reification fallacy which is attributing a concrete characteristic to something that is abstract. Science is an immaterial abstract so it can't see anything.

6) " I have a 1 year old son."
(How do I know you have a 1 year old son and why should I believe it?.)

7)" I disagree with my opponent that it has too be the God from the bible. There are many thing that feel wrong deep down in side of me that the bible states is OK. There is many people that come to God and to the same objective morality with out the bible. We all understand things differently. Is it not more of a testament to the gloy of God that God as given humany so many way to understand God."

(How do you know that morality doesn't have to come from the God of the bible? How do you know that objective morality exists ?

These are 7 claims that you have made without giving me any reasons or evidence for. How do I know that you did not just make up these 7 claims out of your head? Why should I believe these claims without reasons or evidence for them.

Lastly, objective morality has to come from the God of the bible. Only the God of the bible influenced the world since the beginning of human history as we can see from ancient Judism. All other ideas and interpretations of God is stolen from Judaism, including yours. Only the God of the bible is beyond human imagination. He is Triune which means he is one God that consist in three people, Father, Son and Spirit. Not three different gods but one God consistent of three people. As the bible verse says in ( 1John 5:7) [KJV] " For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Also, one of the greatest mysteries of the bible is how could God become fleash and dwelt among us. As the bible verse says (1 Timothy 3:16) [KJV]" And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." The God of the bible has no beginning or no end, he is eternal as the bible verse says in (Revelations 22:13) [KJV] "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." See if the God of the bible was made up by man then why can't man fully understand the nature of God. It is possible to make something up that your mind can't comprehend because that is a contradiction because if you created something then you have to know how it works. For example, I could not make a car because I have no idea how a car works or it's functions. It is impossible for a finite mind to grasp an infinite being like how God is Triune or How God became man or how does God have no beginning or no end. Most interpretation of gods have a something in common. They are consistent of 1 person which a human mind can imagine up. Your interpretation of God has a contradiction to it. He does not punish immorality. Lets take it to secular court of law for the sake of argument. Ok if a criminal is guilty of rape and murder and the Judge refuses to sentence the criminal than that judge is evil for his refusal to do what is right and justly punish the criminal. God is the ultimate Judge and how could your god be good if he refuses to do good and punish evil justly. If the judge in the court room is evil for refusing to sentence a rapist, murderer why doesn't that not hold true for your god. Only the God of the Bible is good because only he does the right thing when it comes to giving the wicked what they diverse like a morally good and righteous judge. either you can accept Jesus' suffering as payment for your moral crimes or you can pay for it yourself in hell but either way God did the right thing in punishing evil. It's just up to you if you want to get punished for what you deserve or trust in Jesus who already got punished.

I challenge my opponent to give me reasons to convince me that his interpretation of God does not come from his imagination but from valid reasons.
gomergcc

Con


Tanach and Tanakh are two versions of spelling on the same word.



The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.




Here is a link with some of the different versions of the bible available to read. The differences between them is really a different debate topic. Again my opponent as fail to understand that all I wanted to know is what version they were reading. While I did get that it was the King James version they have failed to state what version of King James bible.


http://www.tyndalearchive.com...




How do you know the bible is missing 19 books ? Of the Tanach/Tanakh



Here is a link on the subject of how many books there are.



http://www.bibliahebraica.com...




Why should I believe that the bible translations you mention are older than the King James version and how do you know that to be true?



Here is a good link on the history of the bible.


http://amazingbibletimeline.com...




How do you know that the bible states that and it is not true? What verse does it say that if you have faith those miracles will happen? how do you know that those miracles have not happen in the past or won't happen in the future for Christians. How do you know it is not possible for those miracles to not happen within science.




Matthew 17:20 - And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.



I never said they miracles such as moving mounts have or cant happen for Christians only that science say that it cant.



Newtons laws of motion:




  1. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. Mountains stay exactly were they are unless some external force is applied to them.




  2. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector. The mas of mount Everest is estimated to be around 6,399,000,000,000 metric tons. To accelerate the mountain one meter per second squared (m/s2) for one second that takes a f=6,399,000,000,000(1 meter per second squared) or 6,399,000,000,000 metric tons per meter per second squared. This has to be changed to kilograms. There are 1,000 kilograms per metric ton. This leaves us with a force of 6,399,000,000,000,000 kilograms per meter per second squared. Also know as 6,399,000,000,000,000 newtons. This the the same force of 6,399,000 tons of TNT, or 1.25 times the force of every nuclear explosion planet wide to date.




  3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Meaning that you cant move a mountain with out that mountain pushing back with an equal mount of force. This is why the force is squared.






I remind my opponent that the argument is to show that the bible most be true 100%. That I only have to show the possibility that its not 100% true, as one cant never prove something is not true 100%. I have meet my burden of proof by showing that there is not one bible, that at lest some of morality predates the bible, that there is more than one version of the bible, that children know right from wrong before they can talk or read the bible, and that science does not agree with the bible.


Debate Round No. 4
Fundamental-freewill

Pro

I appreciate my opponent for taking my challenge. I hope this was a good debate for the audience. I am Fundamental free will vote for me.
gomergcc

Con


I have shown that knowledge is possible with out the God of the bible, that science is possible with out the God of the bible, that objective Morality is impossible without the God of the bible, and that I don't absolutely believes in the God of the bible. I have meet my burden. My opponent has left many unanswered questions and has not meet there burden. When voting I ask you to vote on who made a better argument and not on your personal spiritual believes.


Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fundamental-freewill 1 year ago
Fundamental-freewill
So I was saying they don't know if evidence as a concept exists so why give them evidence for my position.
Posted by Fundamental-freewill 1 year ago
Fundamental-freewill
Let me clarify what I meant by "that's why I don't give evidence to people who can't even know if evidence exists."because that almost sounded fallacious on my part. What I meant is people outside my world view don't know if the Concept of evidence exists. I did not mean to say that I don't give evidence because they don't know if evidence for my position exists, I meant I don't give evidence because they don't know if the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid exists in general.
Posted by Fundamental-freewill 1 year ago
Fundamental-freewill
"Actually it presupposes that that you claims are not since I am asking for evidence."
Demonstrate this because it's begging the question.

The reason it makes no sense to give you evidence according to your worldview is because valid evidence could be invalid within 5 minutes after presenting it or false evidence could be valid 5 minutes after presenting it. Anyone (including yourself) could say that evidence can no longer make valid arguments anymore. Also,According to your world view you could say that the evidence is valid now but it won't be in 5 minutes from now so I just have to wait 5 minutes to debunk the evidence. By induction I meant : " Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature."

Unless you can make sense of The principle of the uniformity of nature giving evidence makes no sense at all and that's why I don't give evidence to people who can't even know if evidence exists.
Posted by gomergcc 1 year ago
gomergcc
Actually it presupposes that that you claims are not since I am asking for evidence. How do I know Induction applies to nature? Well that really depends on what definition of Induction you are currently using since you did not include any context to inform a reader what meaning you are talking about.
Posted by Fundamental-freewill 1 year ago
Fundamental-freewill
Asking for observable testable, repeatable evidence presupposes my claims to already be true. How do you make sense of Observable, Testable, Repeatable, Evidence because how do you know Induction applies to nature?
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
Do you have any observable, testable, repeatable evidence for any of your claims? If so I would have really liked you to have posted them in the debate. Would have made things more interesting.
Posted by Fundamental-freewill 2 years ago
Fundamental-freewill
"If you doubt your own existence then you have nothing of value to say to anyone else."
Do you have observable, testable, repeatable evidence for this claim?
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
"I Think Therefore I Am" - Ren" Descartes. A valid argument is does other people exist; however, that gets way to abstract and sounds like you watched the Matrix movies to many times. lol
Posted by dhardage 2 years ago
dhardage
If you doubt your own existence then you have nothing of value to say to anyone else.
Posted by Fundamental-freewill 2 years ago
Fundamental-freewill
Where is the observable, testable, repeatable evidence that I even exist. Where is the observable testable, repeatable evidence that pain exists. Not that the sensation exists but that suffering exists associated with pain. Where is the observable, testable, repeatable, evidence that slapping myself won't feel pleasurable.

"I have reasoned that out and you can see that it will match the facts, thus my reasoning is correct."
This is a circular argument to say that your reasoning is correct because you reasoned it to be correct. Why is it acceptable for you to say your reasoning is correct because your reasoning is correct but It is totally unacceptable for me to say that God exists because he just does. That is a double standard.

"You will also get a dose of reality. As soon as the 'how do you know reality exists' woo comes out I know you have no valid arguments."
This is what you call observable, repeatable, testable evidence of reality? I thought according to your world view all claims need to be proven scientifically to be reasonable to belief so what makes the existence of reality any different?

I can make sense of evidence because I have a absolute standard of which I can judge evidence by. With what standard do you judge evidence by? Why would I give you evidence when you have no way to validate the concept of evidence.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dhardage 2 years ago
dhardage
Fundamental-freewillgomergccTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro merely restated old tired fallacies and disproven arguments while Con demonstrated that the sole reference for his assertion is imperfect and unreliable in any sense.