The Instigator
Retrospace
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
RMK
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Does the possibility of going to Space, void the idea of Heaven?

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,122 times Debate No: 1201
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (8)

 

Retrospace

Pro

Before I begin, I would like to state that this is a two (2) round debate.
I would also like to ask who-so-ever accepts this debate to be open minded, and not turn this into an argument about the validation of The Bible, or the existence of a God. This topic, can be very confusing, and I hope that I do make clear on what I'm trying to say. Now on to the debate!

Does the possibility of going to space, void the idea of Heaven?

I believe it does.

I will be pulling from The King James Bible.

Genesis Chapter One verse One.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

This Verse, never declares what heaven is, where it is, or any details on heaven at all. It merely says, it was created. Now I don't have a problem with this, it is fine by itself. The problem lies in when I kept reading.

The next couple of verses state what else God created on the first day of creation. (1:2-6). On verse seven , I noticed something I've never seen before. Or never paid attention to.

Genesis Chapter One Verse Seven-Eight.

"7-And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8-And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. "

Now. What just happened? The Bible , just said, in verse one, that God created Heaven. Then it turned around and said that , in verse seven and eight, God created Heaven again.

So now there's two possibilities available. Either..

A)God has two Heavens.

B)God destroyed the original Heaven and made a new one.

Both of these possibilities have huge flaws. I present them to you now.

Flaw in A- Its self evident, really. There's two Heavens. That's really the only argument. If the opponent agrees, we can void this argument, its absurd, right?

Flaw in B-At first it may seem there isn't a flaw here, but there is. Due to modern science we can go beyond the limits of Earth. Or into the Firmament, which according to The Bible, Heaven.

It may be time to define The Firmament.

1-"celestial sphere: the apparent surface of the imaginary sphere on which celestial bodies appear to be projected" (Source: http://www.google.com...)

2-"The vault or expanse of the heavens; the sky." (Source: http://dictionary.reference.com...)

3-"obsolete" (Source: http://www.m-w.com...)

(The last is pointless, in a way, but I figured I should include them all.)

All of these definitions basically say, that The Firmament is Space/the sky.

Now that The Firmament is defined, there's only one logical assumption.

Aa)-Man has gone to Heaven, while living.

But thats impossible, right?

So i bring this to the table, asking.

Does the ability to leave Earth, void the possibility of Heaven?
RMK

Con

First of all, your knowledge of the Bible (expressed in your argument) leads me to believe that you lack sufficient knowledge of the Bible itself. If I am wrong, I appologize, but that is what it seems from your argument stance. I urge you to read HEAVEN by Randy Alcorn. This will clear up many of your misinterpretations and the information is directly linked to that of what the Scriptures teach.

First, you quote specific Bible versus as though it is the only acknowledement of Heaven and what it is according to the Word of God.

Heaven itself is not a physical realm. Being a human being, I cannot physically GO to Heaven. It is not a "place" of physical being. Heaven is a spiritual realm that hosts spiritual beings.

Heaven is technically two places. However, that has yet to happen (although it will, Lord willing). Heaven, as we know it from a biblical standpoint is a temporary "housing" tool used while sin corupts the world in which we live. The Bible states that, upon the return of Jesus Christ to save us from that sin, Heaven will become the New Earth. Basically meaning, like the prayer says, On earth as it is in heaven.

So, reaching space does not invoke anything about the existence of Heaven.
Debate Round No. 1
Retrospace

Pro

Retrospace forfeited this round.
RMK

Con

The idea of Heaven is not void by the possibility of going to space. My opponent must agree with that now.
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by RMK 9 years ago
RMK
Mangani,

My brother told on me once.

He was 4.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
RMK, unlike you I have the ability to make my own assessments. I don't see the value in reading a book biased on religion when my beliefs are not based on mythical interpretations of other men with no scientific intelligence. It's like listening to the sermon of a preacher with a third grade education...

The right I have to state my opinion that you should not debating this issue is reserved as my own. Obviously you don't agree, but that doesn't prevent me from voicing my opinion that you both are lacking in fundamental religious and scientific knowledge on the subject. Though it may be "fun" to debate for you it is more wise to debate things you know about, not just trying to sound smart and push your agenda as you have a habit of doing.
Posted by RMK 9 years ago
RMK
Mangani,

Please read the book Heaven by Randy Alcorn. This book gives us a glimpse of heaven as described by the scriptures and answers the very points you just tried to make.

As for me debating this issue. More power to me. Who gives you the right to say who should debate what topic?
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
I don't think either of you should have been arguing in this debate. Retrospace, bible makes several distinctions in levels of heaven. Whether that can be translated as the Earth's atmosphere, space, and the spiritual realm of heaven is irrelevant to this discussion other than the fact that a distinction is made, and neither of you addressed this.

Furthermore, RMK, the bible alludes to the fact that the spiritual heaven can be traveled to in the physical form. At least two individuals were taken to heaven in the physical form and never saw death- Elijah and Enoch, and Elijah was said to have been taken there in a vehicle of fire. The bible does not say either of these to men were "transformed", "transfigurated", or otherwise at it states will happen with saints who are still living during the return of Christ. So both of you are wrong.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Funny, because you take him seriously too, or else you wouldn't have responded to my comment. About your church, that's all good. What you hold me to isn't what I believe but sure, if you want to interpret my usage of the quote that way it's fine with me.

It doesn't disprove the rest of my comment though.
Posted by RMK 9 years ago
RMK
Ah yes, George Carlin. The most philosophical/intelligent person I know (there is a reason he is of the comedic profession).

I'm sorry that you have been groomed to believe that the church is all about money. I'm not sure where you have gotten that idea, but that is definitely not my church.

This past Christmas Eve, my church raised $77,000. Where did it go? The pastor's new car? New game room for the church? You'd like to believe so. That money went straight to a town in Africa that is reeling from the effects of AIDS. It is being used to start a cottage that will house orphans that have been left due to their parents dying from AIDS.

Our church collects money to stay open and provide services to the surrounding community. Last time I checked, what is the harm in that?
Posted by roman.legion 9 years ago
roman.legion
I love how the Pro assumes materialism before the debate even began.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
This debate is moot.

"[...]You really can't prove or disprove the existance of pretty much anything outside of abstract areas like mathematics or predicate logic.

You can't prove that werewolves don't exist.
You can't prove that Invisible Pink unicorns don't exist.
You can't prove that carniverous humanoid underground dwellers don't exist.

Technically this means we have to be agnostic about the existance of invisible pink unicorns and everything else. But we'd feel rather silly if we had to admit that there is a remote chance that Santa Claus really does exists building those wooden toys that no kid ever gets for Christmas." - Albert Sweigart

Religions will always just make new interpretations as to evade science and keep their followers' faith. And money.

"But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bull$h!7 story. Holy $h!7!" - George Carlin
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Cat47 5 months ago
Cat47
RetrospaceRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by CoKeCaN 9 years ago
CoKeCaN
RetrospaceRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
RetrospaceRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by aaroncoleman 9 years ago
aaroncoleman
RetrospaceRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by hark 9 years ago
hark
RetrospaceRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
RetrospaceRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
RetrospaceRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by RMK 9 years ago
RMK
RetrospaceRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03