The Instigator
brontoraptor
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Evidence of God is Strong

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 932 times Debate No: 91547
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (1)

 

brontoraptor

Pro

I will be debating as Pro, arguing that the evidence that God exists is strong. MagicAintReal will be arguing that the evidence that God exists is not strong.

1st round - acceptance

Other rounds - anything goes.
MagicAintReal

Con

I accept, and thank Pro for instigating this topic.
Pro has allowed me to put definitions in the first round to help guide this debate.


Definitions

evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

god - the alleged creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

strong - likely to succeed because of sound reasoning or convincing evidence.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Pro?
Debate Round No. 1
brontoraptor

Pro

The word of the Lord, per the Bible, declared the future with bizarre accuracy.


1)A great "false" antichrist prophet will arise denouncing Jesus as the Son of God.


2)This prophet will set up a graven image to be bowed to or the result is death.


3)He will empower a false God who will literally be decpared to be God in the temple of God and does not accept that Jesus is the Son of God.


4)His followers behead Christians.


5)His followers will make up 1/4 of the world and live and spread "by the sword".


6)His followers will kill those who will not submit to him or bow to the image.


7)The Gospel will be preached across the Earth.


*


(Matthew 24:14)
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.


There are 2.4 billion Christians and the full Bible has been translated into 531 languages, and 2,883 languages have at least the gospel portion of the Bible.




*


(Revelation 13:15)
...Cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.


Islam commands death to those who will not submit to Islam. Many who would not submit have been killed.






*


Worship definition:
-Reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.


-Formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage:


www.dictionary.com/browse/worship


-a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual


-extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem.


-to love or honor someone or something very much or even too much.


www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship


*


(Revelation 20:4)
I saw the souls of those who had been BEHEADED because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not WORSHIPED the beast or its IMAGE.


-Alton Nolen, Muslim, attacked a woman at a Vaughan Foods processing plant in Moore, Oklahoma. He cut her head off with a large knife. It was found that he had tried to attempt to convert 2 women to Islam with no success. He cut one's head off in a sawing motion and was in the proccess of beheading the other when security shot him.




"ISIS beheads Christians"




(Quran 8:12) says that Allah will "terrorize unbelievers" and Muslims are to behead them.


(Quran 2:191) Fight and kill unbelievers until “religion is Allah’s,” until Islamic law rules all of the Earth.



There are groups infiltrating the West such as "Sharia for UK" and "Sharia for U.S.A." demanding a place for Sharia in Western society. Muslim women are commanded to cover themselves and are deemed half of a man in court. They cannot go out without a man and cannot drive. The Bible states of Antichrist that he comes to change laws and looks down upon women.

*


(Leviticus 26:1)
"'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved STONE in your land to BOW DOWN before it.'"


Muslims bow to the Kaaba stone as is stated in Revelation, referring to Antichrist's followers.




Who set up the sacred stone? Prophet Muhammed which coincides with Revelation, stating the Antichrist's prophet will set up an image to him to be bowed to.




What is "Antichrist"?


-Denounces Jesus as Christ, the "Son of God".


-A spirit


-Claims to be God


-Sets himself up in the temple.


(1 John 4:3)
But every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of antichrist who you have heard is coming.


(1 John 2:22)
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such is the antichrist, denying the Father and the Son.


(2 Thessalonians 2:4)
He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.


-


The Dome of the Rock, formerly the Jewish Temple of Solomon, housed on the "Temple Mount", has been turned into an "antichrist" monument, the residence of Allah, and it renounces Christ as the "Son of God". This is the exact physical location stated in Revelation of Antichrist taking over to be worshipped as God.


Part of the Inscription on the Dome of the Rock:


"Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son."


"Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of Allah will find that lo! God is swift at reckoning!"




*


Followers of Antichrist come to try to dominate Earth by conquest in the Bible.


(Quran 2:191) Fight and kill unbelievers until “religion is Allah’s,” until Islamic law rules all of the Earth.


(Revelation 6:8)
"...was given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by the SWORD."


Islam has 1.7 billion adherants, a fourth of the Earth.


This is the "Verse of the sword" in the Quran, commanding Muslims to kill the nonMuslims.




Atheist, Sam Harris writes about Islam having been "spread by the sword".




One of the key symbols of Islam is the sword or crossed swords.


MagicAintReal

Con

Oh boy, here we go.
Thanks Pro, for that "argument."
I don't necessarily understand any of it, but here we go.

*The Resolution Is Not True*

God is defined in this debate as the creator AND ruler of the universe AND source of ALL moral authority, yet none of Pro's 2nd round mentions ANY of these qualities.

So, I reject that there is any available body of facts/information that indicate that the god that Pro has mentioned is the creator AND ruler of the universe AND the source of ALL moral authority.

Pro has also randomly quoted scripture and made some connection between the actions of some Muslims of today and the scripture Pro provided.

1. Pro, can you demonstrate that your god created the universe?
None of your quotes reference it.

2. Pro, can you demonstrate that god is the source of ALL moral authority?
Again, none of your quotes reference it.

3. Pro, why should we consider the bible authoritative on matters of the universe or morality?

Without these questions being answered, one must vote Con, because god, in this debate, needs to be shown to be the creator of the universe and source of moral authority, and without any reason to accept the bible as authoritative on these matters, Pro quoting scripture doesn't amount to much.

I await an actual argument from Pro...
Debate Round No. 2
brontoraptor

Pro

Con wants proof of God being "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."


*


If you prayed to God for it to rain money, and it did, you might believe God exists. If you prayed for 500 things and it all came to fruition, it would be nearly impossible to not believe, even if you never saw Him with your eyes. It'd be like denying the wind. You see its movement but don't see it physically with your eyes. You know it exists.


1)What does the Bible claim?


(Collosians 1:16)


For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL THINGS have been created through him and for him.


2) The Bible itself claims that He is "The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."


3)What makes the Bible right?


-It predicts the future. I assume Con does not believe in the power to predict the future with omnipotence. Thus, if it does, it could add a new dimension to his thinking.


*


According to the Bible...


1)A false being claiming to be God will overcome the Christians.


(Revelation 13:7)


It was given power to wage war against God's holy people and to conquer them.


-"The Kingdom of Heaven" Preview Clip-




During the Crusades there were some victories and many losses. In its finality the Temple Mount of God is still today under the control of Islam.


*


The Bible declares a being claiming to be God will replace God in the exact spot of the Temple Mount. But it won't actually be God by Biblical definition.


(2 Thessalonians 2:4)


He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.


*


(Revelation 13:6)


It opened its mouth to BLASPHEME God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven.


The inscription on the Islamic controlled temple-
"Such was J
esus, son of Mary, this is a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not the Majesty of Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Allah!"


"Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the Earth."

By Biblical definition this inscription is blasphemy and antichrist. It slanders God, Earth and Heaven by Biblical definition.


*


In Revelation 13:12 it tells us that (the first beast) the Antichrist gets his authority and power from (the 2nd beast), the FALSE PROPHET. This prophet is so infallable that he reigns supreme and of the highest authority. And...he is against Christ.


Muhammed is the infallable prophet of Islam. He cannot even be depicted in a picture. He cannot be questioned in Islam. And...he rejected Christ like a drumbeat throughout the pages of his Quran. Muhammed fits every description, even the title. Allah fits every description. History and reality fit every description given to us.


The Islamic Shahada is an Islamic creed declaring belief in the oneness of Allah and the acceptance of Muhammad as Allah's Prophet.




*


(Revelation 13:15)


The was given power to give breath to the graven image of the first beast, so that the graven image could SPEAK and cause all who refused to BOW DOWN TO THE IMAGE to be killed.


Per the Quran, nonmuslims are to be offered a chance to submit to Allah. If not, then the punishment is death per the Sharia. Apostasy (leaving Islam) is punished by death.


Do Muslims bow to an image? Yes.


Here is a short clip demonstrating that they do bow to an image.




Here is a link with pictures showing exactly what Muslims are bowing to. The Kaaba Stone that is imbedded in the Cube.




Does the image speak?


Muslims claim it does by saying it spiritually speaks to them and at the end of days will literally speak.


"Thus Allah wrote this confirmation. And this stone has a pair of eyes, ears and a tongue and it opened its mouth upon the order of Allah (swt), who put that confirmation in it."




*


(Revelation 13:18)


This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. It is the number of his name. That number is 666.


John, the apostle who walked with and was the closest to Jesus Christ, wrote the Book of Revelation concerning the times to come. Revelation was written in Greek, as was the entire New Testament. It tells us the number of the Antichrist is 666. So, in Greek, it was written 666. But it also tells us that this number is actually antichrist's name.


-Here is a short video clip explaining that the number 666 of Greek is readable in Arabic, the language of Islam and the Quran. In Arabic, 666 means literally,"In the name of Allah".


http://youtu.be...


*


What is the point? The Bible depicted the future in the most specific and bizzare description. Even stranger. It became reality in real life. Did the universe manifest the Biblical version of the future with divine intervention? Shall the opposers suggest that it was magic? Did we simply hit the jackpot by blind luck? I don't believe in magic. I do believe in reality. I do believe in the power that created our reality and its influence.

If reality is finite, we are asked to believe in basketballs that can exist in npthing. If time is finite, meaning, it never was, then oneday popped into existance, that would be magic.

If reality is of infinite space and/or time, then there are infinite you's, infinite me's, infinite everything possible. There was no first you nor a last you. Everything infinitely recycles and has never not been recycling. There were events but no first event. Everything is a doppleganger of someone or something else infinitely. This would demand its maximum event, its maximum being. The greatest thing, the greatest being possible. Its master...

The carnal mind looks at us as physical, finite entities in a "real and physical world", but we aren't. We are simply atoms in motion, subatomic particles, 3 dimensional pixal-like ghost images in 3 dimensional space. This is AutoCad, God style. Reality has a fabric. It is a medium.

Infinite reality? How? Finite reality? How? Philosophy at its core rejects both but...we do exist.

Our reality is a finite reality? Convince me how a basketball can hang and exist inside of nothing.

Our reality is infinite? Convince me how reality can never end. Convince me how we can have a medium that is endless.

I can show you how we can have either. But not without creationism. Not without an outside agent. Not without the singularity. Not without God.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for that "response" Pro.
I'll keep this brief, and address parts of Pro's response.

Pro mentions:
"Con wants proof of God being the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."

My response:
Yeah, and so do readers/voters of this debate.
It's literally the whole point of this debate.

So Pro claims:
"If you prayed to God for it to rain money, and it did, you might believe God exists."

My response:
Or that the water cycle has been taken over by Lil Wayne...

Pro continues:
"If you prayed for 500 things and it all came to fruition, it would be nearly impossible to not believe, even if you never saw Him with your eyes."

My response:
Who?
Lil Wayne?
I'm confused.
If I prayed for 500 things and it all came to fruition, and one of those things was the eradication of gullible beliefs, then it would be impossible to believe in "Him" which I assume to mean the god you're purporting, not Lil Wayne.

Pro gets relevant:
"What makes the Bible right?"

My response:
Yes!
Finally, someone is going to address this crucial point.

Pro provides the answer:
"It predicts the future. I assume Con does not believe in the power to predict the future with omnipotence. Thus, if it does, it could add a new dimension to his thinking."

My response:
Ok, show me that the bible predicts the future.

Pro claims:
"According to the Bible...a false being claiming to be God will overcome the Christians...to wage war against God's holy people and to conquer them...during the Crusades there were...many losses...in its finality the Temple Mount of God is still today under the control of Islam."

My response:
False god = Temple Mount of God is run by Muslims = Bible was right?
I'm not convinced by this.
I don't view the seizure of the Temple Mount as a fulfillment of the prediction you quoted in the bible...care to elaborate here?

So, at this point, I'm going to ignore the rest of Pro's 3rd round, because it's either irrelevant, incoherent, religiously intolerant, disjointed, or annoying to read, and more importantly, it never explains how god created the universe, how god rules the universe, how god is the source of all moral authority, or why we should consider the bible authoritative on matters of the universe or moral authority.

Sorry Pro, but your 3rd round was garbage.
So, I've thrown it out.

Any actual arguments Pro?
Debate Round No. 3
brontoraptor

Pro

Con: "Sorry Pro, but your 3rd round was garbage."


(Looks like we got Con on the treatment of the opponent.)


The same could be said for hygiene, love, education, and honesty, but it would be a minority opinion and nothing else. "Con finds hygiene, love, education, and honesty to be garbage, thus they must be..." One man's trash is another man's treasure.


Con is trying a dismissal technique. Act like it's dumb and retreat. It's like fighter #1 saying fighter #2 could not beat him, pointing out some stat comparison, but refusing to actually fight fighter #1. Is he right? Not neccessarily. Dismissal is not a rebuttal.


Con has also used a non sequitur technique by calling me a bigot. One might could argue me as impolite. Either way it has nothing to do with the correctness of my points.


-Con:"Ok, show me that the bible predicts the future."


We did that in both rounds. Con dropped almost all points without any rebuttle.


Con has chosen to dismiss the following points. Why? Because it's hard to argue against them.


Points:


1)A great Prophet will arrive and specifically renounce Christ as the Son of God.


(The Dome of the Rock says word for word,"Jesus is not the Son of God.")


(Muhammed is the "Great Prophet" of Islam. He cannot even be drawn or depicted.)


2)His followers will behead Christians in droves. (Who's beheading who nowadays?)


3)His god will be placed into power at the Temple Mount. Not somewhere else, but right there in that exact spot.(The temple is Islamic right now, today, in real life.)


4)His followers will bow to a graven image.


(All 1.7 billion Muslims bow toward the Kaaba.)


5)Revelation 12:9, 13:1, 20:2, tells us the prophet and his followers get power and authority from Satan. Antichrist (the beast) is the false guise of Satan himself.


Can I get even more specific? Am I just guessing? No. We are given a pattern to know who and what it all is that makes it simple to discern.


*


SATAN-


Revelation 12:9


"..who is called the devil and Satan, who is the DECIEVER of the whole world."


(Quran 3:54)


"Allah is the greatest of DECIEVERS."


*


2 Corinthians 11:13-15


"Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."


-Sira, Ibn Hisham p.60


"When Muhammed's mother asked if I feared a demon possessed him, I replied that I did."


-Sira, Ibn Hisham


"Muhammad’s mental condition was a matter of concern in his childhood. His wet nurse proclaimed he was demon possessed."


Al-Abyad, a demon is the friend of the prophets and he is the one who went to the Prophet (pbuh) in the form of Gabriel.


Al-Qurtubi (arabic) 242/19 /


The angel that came to Muhammed was claimed by Muhammed to be a demon. It later convinced him it was Gabriel to prevent Muhammed from killing himself.


(Tafsir al-Qurtubi is a famous Qur’an exegesis by the famous classical scholar Al-Qurtubi. d.671H.


Al-Qurtubi (arabic) 37/18 / )


-Allah, strangely has no name. He is nameless. Allah simply means "God" in Arabic.


*


Let's get to the nitty gritty. Revelation tells us this group that follows an "antichrist prophet" and beheads Christians, and bows to a graven image will not inherit the kingdom of God but eternal damnation. (Revelation 14:9, 14:10)


(Revelation 20:10)


Satan, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown.


*


Well...God told us earlier specifically who will not inherit the kingdom of God, so there is no doubt.


God established who was His and who was not and in very specific fashion.


(Genesis 21:10)



"And she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac."


(Genesis 21:12)


God said to Abraham, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."


God rejected Ishmael and his descendants in the first book of the Bible.


Who are Ishmael's descendents?


1)Muhammed


2)The Arabs


3)Islam




Why was Ishmael and his descendents rejected?


(Genesis 16:12)


They will be like an untamed beast; their hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against them, and they will live in hostility toward all."


So, was the Bible right?


-"9/11, First Tower Falls"



"Belgium Attack footage"




"London Bombing"




"Boston Marathon Bombing"




"San Bernardino Massacre"




"Tahurrish, Islamic Rape Jihad on Infidel Women"




"Lara Logan raped during Broadcast"




"Rape Jihad. The Rape of Cologne"




"Muslim Rape of Sweden"




"Violence at Swedish movie"




"Cop shot in name of Allah"




"Oklahoman beheaded at work"




Burn alive & drown infidels




What Atheism has to lean on is the dimmered "hope" that the many, many writers of the Bible over thousands of years were the luckiest group of guessers to have ever walked the planet Earth.

I reiterate:

1)Gospel preached all over Earth.

2)Great Prophet arrises and renounces Christ.

3)His followers behead Christians.

4)His followers bow to a graven image set up by this prophet. (Muhammed set the kaaba stone in its place.)

5)This prophet sets up a different entity at the Temple Mount calling it "God". And nowhere else, but right in that exact spot. Allah is set up in that exact spot.

6)We are given affirmation in Genesis as to who EXACTLY God rejects.

7)The descendents of Ishmael will be violent towards everyone.

8)The prophet's followers actually are following Satan manifested as God on Earth. Allah's description and story matches Satan to a "T".

Con so far has no rebuttle for any prophechy, nor does he have rebuttle for any of the philosophical arguments.

I have shown that the Bible is prophetic.

If the Bible can tell the future clearly through a combination of many writers, then it is inspired by God.

If the Bible is inspired by God, then obviously God exists.

If God exists, by Biblical definition of God, He meets all standards set by Con neccessary to win this debate. Creator/Supreme authority/Moral authority.
MagicAintReal

Con

Pro, your 3rd round was really hard to read because it was disorganized and had many listed, but not explained, bible quotes; it discouraged me from reading all of it...it all kind of seemed irrelevant.
However, I'm willing to extract as much relevance as I can muster from Pro's 3rd and 4th round, and I'll rebuttal.
I was called a retreating fighter!

*RELEVANT REBUTTAL*

Pro claimed:
"The Bible depicted the future in the most specific and bizzare description. Even stranger. It became reality in real life."

My response:
Despite the tautology, can you explain HOW the bible mentioning a false prophet or a beast indicates that god created the universe, or that a temporal process like creation is even possible without time/universe?

Without Pro addressing HOW god created the universe, retrofitting events and religions to swaths of cherry picked scripture and claiming accurate prophecy does not qualify as an available body of facts indicating that the proposition of a universe creator is true.


Pro asks:
"Did the universe manifest the Biblical version of the future with divine intervention?"

My response:
No.

Pro also asks:
"Shall the opposers suggest that it was magic? "

My response:
Check my screen name.

Pro continues:
"Did we simply hit the jackpot by blind luck?"

My response:
Was there a jackpot mentioned in the piles of unexplained bible quotes you provided, Pro?
Well, there's no jackpot mentioned in my explanation of how the universe originated sans creator, so your analogies are as useless as your bible quotes.

Pro asserts:
"I do believe in the power that created our reality and its influence"

My response:
Great, how about the power that you claim created the universe, the agreed to definition of god in this debate?
Of course, you just believing it doesn't make the evidence strong, it just makes your belief strong...
No universe, no time, no time base processes, no creation, no creator, no god in this debate...deal with this Pro.


Pro gets logical:
"If reality is finite, we are asked to believe in basketballs that can exist in nothing. If time is finite, meaning, it never was, then one day popped into existence, that would be magic."

My response:
Time is a property of the universe, and it is on a continuum with space.
This means that, sans universe, when there was no stative space, there was no stative time, and instead, both space and time fluctuated in and out of existence in quantum fluctuations along with the virtual sub nuclear particles and their forces.

Nothing is a state of fluctuating virtual particles.
http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com...

Here's a nice video for explaining the nothing state, which is the condition without a universe.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

Since our universe had a beginning, so did spacetime.

It's also not magic, because getting something (energy) from nothing (no energy) is perfectly reasonable in quantum mechanics, thanks to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
http://www.currentscience.ac.in...

The stuff that happens on a quantum level might blow your mind, but it's all perfectly normal stuff, and furthermore my screen name.

Pro reasons:
"If reality is of infinite space and/or time,"

My response:
Space may keep on expanding out forever, but it still had a definite beginning, an unstable expression of quantum fluctuations at the big bang.

Pro adds:
"There were events but no first event."

My response:
I would say that the origin of time is a pretty good candidate for "first event."

Pro then begins asking about how we can have a universe without an external creator, and I ask, how can an external creator use time to create time?
How does one accomplish a time-based process, creation, without time?
Pro can't answer this, and won't, and if there's no time, there's no temporal process, there's no creation, there's no creator, therefore there's no god in this debate.


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...


*TERRORIST EVENTS*

Pro had also listed a series of terrorist events that were retrofitted to random quotes from the bible, and Pro tried to link this to Islam.
What Pro ignored were all of the terrorist events that occurred SANS Islam, and in the name of the god that Pro is claiming predicted these terrorist events.

All 10 events gathered from:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

1. July 29, 1994: Army of God (United States) member Rev. Paul Jennings Hill murders gynecologist John Britton and Britton's bodyguard James Barrett with a shotgun at close range, outside the Ladies Center clinic in Pensacola, Florida.

2. December 10, 1994: Advertising executive Thomas J. Mosser is killed by a mail bomb sent by Unabomber.

3. December 30, 1994: Anti-abortion activist John C. Salvi III shoots and kills 2 employees and injures 5 others in a rampage attack at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts. Salvi escapes and drives to Norfolk, Virginia, where Army of God (United States) spokesman Rev. Donald Spitz resides.

4. December 31, 1994: Salvi attacks the Planned Parenthood clinic in Norfolk, Virginia. Salvi is apprehended shortly after, and has in his possession Army of God (United States) spokesman Donald Spitz's name and unlisted telephone number.

5. April 19, 1995: Oklahoma City bombing — Timothy McVeigh parks a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City which explodes killing 168 people, including 19 children. McVeigh and Terry Nichols are convicted in the bombing, motivated by their outrage over the FBI's handling of the Waco Siege.

6. April 24, 1995: Timber industry lobbyist Gilbert P. Murray, is killed in the third and final mailbomb attack by the Unabomber.

7. July 27, 1996: Centennial Olympic Park bombing Army of God (United States) member Eric Robert Rudolph places a three pipe bombs in a backpack, which he leaves in busy Centennial Olympic Park. The bomb is discovered by security guard Richard Jewell who raises an alert. One person is killed and 111 others are wounded in the explosion. Rudolph's bomb is intended to force the cancellation of the Atlanta Olympics due to his outrage over legal abortion.

8. January 16, 1997: Army of God (United States) member Eric Robert Rudolph bombs a women's health clinic in Sandy Springs, Georgia. There are two bombs; the first meant to kill people inside the clinic, the second bomb placed in the parking lot and time-delayed to kill first-responders.

9. February 21, 1997: Army of God (United States) member Eric Robert Rudolph bombs the Otherside Lounge, a gay bar in Atlanta, Georgia. There are two bombs; the first left on the outdoor patio, the second bomb left in the parking lot, time-delayed to kill first-responders.

10. January 29, 1998: Army of God (United States) member Eric Robert Rudolph bombs a women's clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, killing 1 and critically injuring another.

So, Pro, you now have to explain why the army of YOUR BIBLICAL GOD and non-Muslims were responsible for all of these events, and why your silly bible quotes don't show these obvious Christians, not Muslims, fulfilling terrorist prophecy.
Good luck.


Pro, other than your baldly asserted retrofitting of scripture to current terror events:
1. Why should we consider the bible authoritative on matters of the universe?
2. HOW did god create the universe without time?
3. HOW does god rule the universe?
4. HOW is god the source of all moral authority when he allows such atrocities to happen and refuses to stop them EVEN THOUGH he's supposed to have foreknowledge of them?

Come on, Pro...you have to address these problems.
Debate Round No. 4
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:

"Space may keep on expanding out forever, but it still had a definite beginning, an unstable expression of quantum fluctuations at the big bang."

It is eternal and never ends, yet it had a beginning...?

Con:

"I would say that the origin of time is a pretty good candidate for "first event."

If time did not exist, nothing would have ever happened including time itself. This also infers magical thinking. Time did not exist, but one day "poof", there was time. Are we trying to prove creationism with this response?

Con:

"How does one accomplish a time-based process, creation, without time?"

If you are the creator of time, time is meaningless in how you do anything. Mark Zuckerberg is not defined or ruled by any construct that makes up facebook.

Con:

"HOW did god create the universe without time?"

The same way nothing created the universe without time in Con's model...

Con:

"HOW is god the source of all moral authority when he allows such atrocities to happen and refuses to stop them EVEN THOUGH he's supposed to have foreknowledge of them?"

If you are looking at infinite amounts of possibilities and your mind runs at the highest conceivable speed, you can look at all kinds of possibilities, see the final result of all of these possibilities, and pick the one that finishes well or "best". Omniscient morality is based off of ability to see all outcomes together as one final product. Are you morally bound to let it play out knowing it turns out well, or are you morally bound to stop it because there are dark colors in between? This is semantics.

Want an example of this concept? I know you do. So here it is:

*

"Let There be Light"


*

Con:

"HOW does god rule the universe?"

Apparently in similar fashion to how a computer programmer rulers the virtual worlds he creates.

James Gates: "Super Symmetry" video-


*

Con:

"Why should we consider the bible authoritative on matters of the universe?"

Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament, fulfilled it in the New Testament, was claimed to have raised the dead and even raised from the dead Himself, had command of the weather, healed the blind, lame, deaf, crippled, put a severed ear back on a Roman soldier's head and back to working order, etc, predicted the future with unbelievable confidence that then came true...and...He claimed to be God in the flesh.

So the question is,"Who's in charge?"

If Christ claimed to be God, was claimed by many to have proven to be God, and then the Revelation about Him shows us the future with impossible precision, then Christ is in charge. The Bible is about Christ and provides the words of Christ. That would make Him authoritative and thus, makes the Bible authoritative.

(Collosians 1:16)

"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and for Him."

*

Con hopes I am cherry picking verses. It's not neccessary On my part. Anyone can read Revelation and Genesis for themselves.

Revelation 13


*

I'll quote a Biblical site as backup & paste its address at the end.

The Beast-

Quote:

"The Beast is the leader of a powerful religious and governmental system."

"This religious/political system of government has tremendous economic, industrial, military, and spiritual power at its disposal as it seeks to dominate the entire world."

(Quran 8:39)

"Fight them, until there is no persecution and the religion of Earth is Allah’s entirely."

-

The False Prophet-

Quote:

"This spiritual leader denies that Jesus Christ is the true Son of God."

"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from my Truth!" (9:30, Yusif Ali)

34 Such was Jesus the son of Mary: it is a statement of truth, about which they vainly dispute. 35 It is not befitting to the majesty of Allah that He should beget a son.

(19:34-35, Yusif Ali)

www.bibleresearch.org/prophecybook2/b2w10.html
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for the debate Pro, I hope you'll take my criticisms of your approach to posting your arguments.
Stick to the relevant things, and, if you're going to quote the bible, then please explain the link for each quote or else it all seems irrelevant.
Let's finish this.

*FINAL REBUTTALS*

I had originally asked Pro why we should consider the bible authoritative on matters of the universe or morality, and, as far as I can tell, the only reason Pro provided was that the bible was prophetic.
Pro's problems here are two-fold.

1. Accurate prophecy was never demonstrated by Pro, instead, Pro took bible quotes and retrofitted post-biblical events/Islam/recent terror attacks without showing how these quotes exclusively indicate any of those concepts; it was all very unclear.

2. Even if these concepts were accurately predicted, the predictions indicate NOTHING about the origins of the universe or the ultimate source of moral authority, so we shouldn't be obligated to commit an association fallacy that since the bible predicted x, it's therefore also correct about/authoritative on y.

Pro just never gave us any reason to think that his god created the universe/is a morality source or that we should buy what the bible's selling us.


Pro asked about space:
"It is eternal and never ends, yet it had a beginning?"

My response:
I never said space was eternal, I said that space definitely had a beginning and that space may keep on expanding forever.
No contradiction here.


Pro reasons:
"If time did not exist, nothing would have ever happened including time itself."

My response:
Time did not exist when there was no universe, but zero energy did.
From an unstable zero energy state, time was expressed when a virtual particle avoided annihilation.

Pro continues:
"Time did not exist, but one day "poof", there was time. Are we trying to prove creationism with this response?"

My response:
Time is contingent on space, and space is the position of or the distance between STATIVE matter.
At one point, there was no stative matter, instead it fluctuated in and out of existence in zero energy quantum fluctuations.
Once matter was stative though, there was then stative space and therefore stative time.
Unstable zero energy-->stative energy-->stative time.


Pro reasons further:
"If you are the creator of time, time is meaningless in how you do anything."

My response:
Here's the deep structure of Pro's reasoning:
If you are the entity that used a time-based process to bring about the existence of time, time is meaningless in how you do anything.

A creator MUST precede their creation and precedence is impossible without stative time...you never got to this Pro.


Pro tells how god created the universe sans time:
"The same way nothing created the universe without time in Con's model."

My response:
Oh really?
I didn't see anywhere in Pro's cornucopia of bible quotes any mention of fluctuating variables expressing stative matter/energy/space/time.
Nothing didn't *create* anything, rather, nothing is unstable and cannot remain, thus something (energy) is guaranteed without any creation necessary.
Origin and creation are simply not the same terms.


Pro responds to god's allowance of atrocities:
"If you are looking at infinite amounts of possibilities and your mind runs at the highest conceivable speed, you can look at all kinds of possibilities, see the final result of all of these possibilities, and pick the one that finishes well or "best"."

My response:
Oh, so innocent babies being born with malaria only to suffer and die was the best pick?
So, that's the best that god can do, huh Pro?
God's best sucks.

Pro asks:
"Are you morally bound to let it play out knowing it turns out well, or are you morally bound to stop it because there are dark colors in between?"

My response:
You are morally bound to make everything perfect because you have every ability to do so, therefore if there are dark colors in between, you've created them, knew they would happen, chose them, and did nothing to stop atrocities...nothing.


Pro explains how god rules the universe:
"Apparently in similar fashion to how a computer programmer rulers the virtual worlds he creates."

My response:
And the bible quote you provided that showed this is...?
Non existent.
Similar to the evidence for your purported god.


Pro tells us why we should buy what the bible's selling:
"Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament, fulfilled it in the New Testament"

My response:
You mean to say that the authors of the new testament retrofitted prophecies from a book with which they were largely familiar.

Pro continues:
"Jesus was claimed to have raised the dead and even raised from the dead Himself"

My response:
I was claimed to have made things fly and even fly myself in the classroom where I teach...I still didn't create the universe.

Pro continues:
"Jesus had command of the weather, healed the blind, lame, deaf, crippled, put a severed ear back on a Roman soldier's head and back to working order"

My response:
Really?
Jesus was able to fix the problems his father created?
Great.
Now if only Jesus could create the universe, then we'd have some strong evidence, but nope.

Pro finishes:
"Jesus predicted the future with unbelievable confidence that then came true...and...He claimed to be God in the flesh."

My response:
Thus ends the list of evidence-less claims by Pro, they remain mere assertions, AND, even if they were true, do not indicate the creation of the universe or the source of ALL moral authority.


I reject that a creator of the universe exists, because without a universe, there is no space, therefore there is no time, and temporal processes like creation that necessitate precedence and series of events are impossible without time.
No time, no creation, no creator, no god.
Pro never got to this, and one can vote Con here.

Pro also never showed why we should consider the bible authoritative for any other reason than the bible.
We were never shown ANY of the bible's authoritativeness on the origin of the universe or source of moral authority.

Thanks Pro for the debate, but please stop quoting so much scripture.
Evidence is usually strongest when there's more than one source to back it up.

I'm out, peace, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Chaosism// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Con (S&G, Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments. [Revision: the resolution as presented in R1 doesn't express a shared BoP; Con's assigned position is literally the negation of the resolution. As such, Arguments to Con.]

[*Reason for non-removal*] Most of the vote is clearly sufficient, with the voter going into more than sufficient detail on arguments, conduct and sources. S&G comes close, as the voter doesn't clearly establish an impediment to understanding Pro's arguments, but it is clear where the misspellings are and that can be perceived as a difficulty.
********************************************************** **************
Posted by MagicAintReal 8 months ago
MagicAintReal
Cool, thanks.
Posted by Chaosism 8 months ago
Chaosism
You know what - you're right. I misinterpreted what Bronto wrote as the expansion of the resolution in R1. Your position is indeed the negation of the resolution. I shall amend my vote.
Posted by MagicAintReal 8 months ago
MagicAintReal
Thanks for the vote and thorough RFD Chaosism, but do you think that in a factual debate the BoP is necessarily shared?
Posted by Chaosism 8 months ago
Chaosism
=+= Chaosism RFD: Part 3 =+=

The way the instigator presents the resolution in R1 is that each participant will be arguing for their respective claim. In other words, both participants have an assertive position, so the Burden of Proof is shared.

From the get-go, it appears that Pro's primary strategy is to show, via prophecy, that there is strong evidence that the bible is correct and, in turn, show that there is strong evidence for God from there. This is not at all made clear by Pro, though. Con largely dismisses Pro's length strong of Biblical and Quranic scriptures and loose explanations. Pro actually crystalizes this strategy in R3 as a response to Con"s criticism and provides more prophetic scripture. I have to point out that Pro mistakenly refers to "omnipotence" in reference to predicting the future whereas, the correct term is "omniscience". Con's R3 is short, and prompts Pro to explain how the specific prophetic scriptures referred to the Muslims (seizure of the Temple Mount). Con then dismisses the remainder of Pro's previously argument.

In response to Con, Pro elaborates a little (and repeats) in R4. Pro also strives to show that the perceived alternative (atheism) is absurd. Con sifts through and highlights the ambiguity and vagueness that exists in the cited scriptures and, as such, does not constitute a body of facts from which a strong conclusion can be drawn. At the end of R4, Con dismantles the list of terror events that Pro used as support, and demonstrates hose that were not committed in the name of Islam. In R5, Pro shifts slightly, providing scriptures to supporting why the Bible should be held in authority. Con explains that Pro was utilizing the ambiguity of chosen scriptures to retrofit choice events to, so it doesn"t reliably show fulfilled prophecy.
Posted by Chaosism 8 months ago
Chaosism
=+= Chaosism RFD: Part 2 =+=

At the end of R2, Pro offers a new argument geared towards the nature of reality in terms of finite and infinite, that both are absurd, and that God is the only solution. Pro does not demonstrate a firm grasp of the issues in his explanations. It was not adequately explained why God is the only plausible explanation, and Con ignores this until R4. Con provides a rebuttal to Pro which is supported by reliable sources, which pertains to what "nothing" is, and to the nature of time and space. Pro responds in R5 with questions and motions towards creationism employing this expressed uncertainty (Argument from Ignorance). Pro doesn't seem to fully understand Con's previous responses. Pro's argumentation doesn"t advance, and Pro even randomly asserts the proposition of a "virtual world".

Con's strategy is to refute the aspects of the definition of God that was provided in R1 (by Con), to which Pro appeared to have no objection. From the initial arguments provided by Con, Con appears to be arguing as if the BoP was on Pro, given the prompts to demonstrate the defined properties of God. Con harps on Pro regarding this point later in the debate, as well. In R4, Con offers a loose temporal argument towards the negative of the resolution. Although this is not significantly challenged by Pro, this argument came late in the debate and it isn"t presented in a way as to constitute "strong" evidence as per the resolution of the debate.

All in all, I don't see that either participant successfully fulfilled their BoP by meeting the requirement for "strong" evidence. Arguments is a tie.
Posted by Chaosism 8 months ago
Chaosism
=+= Chaosism RFD: Part 3 =+=

Conduct:
In R3 (among other places), Con passively ridicules (albeit humorously) Pro argumentation, which detracts from the debate. Con also tends towards a dismissive attitude towards Pro, which could have been done with more respect. Given this and that Pro maintains respectful conduct throughout the debate, Conduct is awarded to Pro.

S/G:
There were consistent spelling issues on Pro's side (e.g. "neccessarily", "rebuttle", "arrises"), which was not the case for Con. Use spellcheck, Pro!

Reliable Sources:
In general, YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources for a debate (especially when they're just provided for a supplementary explanation). Pro used quite a few sources, many of which were news and blog sites that covered specific events that Pro was referencing in an explanation. For the most part, no information is taken from these sources that support the resolution; they just reinforce that the event occurred. There are a few sources from which information is used, but those are not strongly reliable (e.g. Wiki). Con uses a few links late in the debate (YouTube explanations ignored) which are actual study articles (like the PDF link to "Current Science") that *directly* support Con"s rebuttal arguments. Source to Con.
Posted by MagicAintReal 9 months ago
MagicAintReal
Whoopty doo!
Posted by brontoraptor 9 months ago
brontoraptor
" Long ago, "St. Augustine gave an answer that should deeply impress modern cosmologists." He said that there was no time "before" the Beginning" (Sitzer p.19)."
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Adley104// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I am a christian, i i know for a fact that God created the universe because if god didn't, we would even be here. So I agree with Pro from start to end. They both had good conduct, spelling and grammar, and both used greats sources, but pro had good reasoning.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter merely ascribes Pro with "good reasoning" without explaining why that reasoning was good. The voter is required to assess points made by both sides, and not merely decide the debate based on whom they agree with personally.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 8 months ago
Chaosism
brontoraptorMagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments. [Revision: the resolution as presented in R1 doesn't express a shared BoP; Con's assigned position is literally the negation of the resolution. As such, Arguments to Con.]