The Instigator
JonHouser
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
CosmoJarvis
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Faith is active and visible, not something that just occures "in your heart".

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 728 times Debate No: 99436
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

JonHouser

Pro

Many people quote Eph 2:8 to say that we are saved when we believe, and no action is required on our part.

I find this contradictory to other Scripture.

I would challenge my opponent to prove that Scripture indicates no action is required on our part to fulfill the faith portion of the passage referenced above.

I, on the other hand, will prove that Scripture is very clear that there are certain actions commanded of us before we are united with the cleansing power of the Blood of Christ (saved).

BoP will be equally shared.

Con may begin debate arguments in round 1 along with acceptance of the debate.
CosmoJarvis

Con

I will argue that faith and religion is the lack of information, or misinformation concerning the conception of life and the world's origins, rather than being a real thing. Furthermore, I will argue that faith is no more than something that "occurs in our heart."

I await Pro's argument.
Debate Round No. 1
JonHouser

Pro

I would like to apologize to my worthy opponent. He has entered into this debate which assumes the validity of the Bible, the sovereignty of God, and the need of mankind to have a savior because of our fallen nature. If we remove those assumptions, then this debate is meaningless, because there would be no need for faith in a god that does not exist.

However, these assumptions are true. We were created by One all-powerful, all-knowing, always present God. He set the world in order, designed all the laws, rules, and systems that make the universe function (and are the basis of the Science that is so honored by evolutionary theory), and then gave man one rule. The first man and woman broke that rule, and so were cut off from God by their sin.

God wants us, His creation, to seek after Him. He wants us to want a relationship with Him, but He demands that we be Holy (as He is Holy) before we can have that relationship. The only way for this to occur is for God Himself to forgive us, because it was our (mankind's) actions that broke the relationship in the first place. So, because one of the rules He set up was that the blood of a sacrifice is required to forgive sin, He sent Jesus, His son, to offer Himself as a sacrifice to cleanse our sins, and open a door back to relationship with God.

Now, based on your opening statement, I would guess that you believe more in the evolutionary explanation of things. While evolution may seem to explain the diversity of life, and natural phenomena seem to explain the world around us, it cannot account for the beginning of life, because that would violate several of the most fundamental laws scientists depend upon. Namely, the second law of thermodynamics.

Nature does not naturally tend toward order. It ALWAYS tends toward disorder. Life is the most ordered system there is. For life to have sprung from non-life, there would have to have been an intelligent ordering influence. For example, I direct your attention to the protein. For proteins to function properly, amino acids first must be arranged and connected in the proper order. Then that chain of amino acids must be folded in the proper way. If either of these steps is skipped, or done improperly, the result is not a functional protein. Proteins are folded in the mitochondria which is a structure inside a cell that is made out of proteins. So which came first? The properly folded protein, or the "machine" that folds proteins but is itself made of proteins? The mitochondria could not have come first because it, being made of proteins would require that the proteins already be in existence. But the protein could not have come first, because proteins do not fold themselves, ever. So the only logical option left to us is that an intelligent, powerful, reasoning, force (which I call God) caused these structures to be.

We are now so far outside of the parameters of the original debate that it is ridiculous, but if you are interested in learning more about God I would be happy to correspond with your directly, rather than in this debate forum, where we can explore these matters to your heart's content. If, however, you are content not knowing more about Him, then we can continue for the sake of finishing the debate, and part as friends.
CosmoJarvis

Con

Outline:
I. Introduction

II. Validity of the Bible
III. The Law of Thermodynamics vs Evolution
IV. Prebiotic Molecules and Abiotic Synthesis
V. Conclusion
VI. Sources

I. Introduction

"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, or future life for individuals, or of a personal God." -Thomas Edison

Religion and faith is and always has been the lack of an understanding of our environment; the question of how we were made, and to what purpose we are to serve; the belief that our existence was no accident. The Greeks used mythology and Gods to explain the origins of mankind, and to provide some reason towards why things happened, that could not be explained otherwise (S1). Zeus, God of the Sky, was believed to have controlled the weather, destiny, fate and kingship. Ares, God of War, was believed to inspire violence, battlelust and courage (S2). Though regarded as nothing but fairytales in this day and age, Greek mythology was used to explain how the world worked; why wars started; why the weather changed the way it did; why people were either moral or immoral.

II. Validity of the Bible

Similarly, the Bible is used to explain man's origins and the world. As claimed in the tale of Genesis, God made man from clay, and a woman from the man's rib. However, these tales of living, breathing human beings being formed from clay or a fragment of a person's bone, a suggestion that alchemy is plausible, or the belief that the world is a meager six thousand years old as opposed to four billion years, or the entire Earth being flooded, the belief that a man, such as Noah, could surpass over two hundred years of age, when put into perspective, does seem "off," if not impossible. For example, the Bible claims that the Earth is relatively six thousand years old. However, trees such as the Old Tjikko have surpassed six thousand years. It's estimated to be approximately 9,550 years old (S3). This fact alone should put to rest that the Bible can make accurate statements on the world. Another example of the Bible's inaccuracies is the story of Noah's Ark. According to the Bible, he, his two sons, and his wife managed to make a boat capable of housing two of every creature on this Earth. It would be an estimated around 510 feet long and 51 feet tall capable of sailing for around 150 days (S4). This also means that Noah would have to travel to find the the emus in Australia, the wild boars in Europe and the Canadian Geese in North America. However, during the time of Noah, the "New World," or North and South America, were not even discovered yet, and the voyages to successfully retrieve every animal on this world would take lifetimes. Bill Nye, a prominent speaker regarding religion, bashed the Biblical belief of Earth being 6,000 years old in a debate against Ken Ham, saying "My scientific colleagues go to places like Greenland, the Arctic, they go to Antarctica and they drill into the ice with hollow drill bits; it's not that extraordinary, and many have probably done it yourselves, like with hole saws to put locks in doors, for example. And we pull out long cylinders of ice, long ice rods. And these are made of snow and ice. It's called snow ice. Snow ice forms over the winter, and snow flakes fall, and are crushed down by subsequent layers. They're crushed together, and are entrapping little bubbles. The bubbles must needs be [from] ancient atmospheres; there's nobody running around with a hypodermic needle squirting ancient atmosphere into the bubbles. And we find certain of the cylinders to have 680,000 layers. 680,000 snow winter/summer cycles. How could it be that just 4000 years ago, all of this ice formed? We can just run some numbers. Let's see we have 680,000 layers of snow ice, and 4000 years since the great flood, that means we need 170 winter/summer cycles every year. For the last 4000 years. Wouldn't someone have noticed that? Wouldn't someone have notice there's been winter/summer, winter/summer for 170 times in one year?" (S5).

My opponent fails to provide any evidence towards God and the validity of the Bible, instead making baseless statements such as "[this debate] assumes the validity of the Bible, the sovereignty of God," and "We were created by One all-powerful, all-knowing, always present God."


III. The Law of Thermodynamics vs Evolution

My opponent explains the impossibility of evolution by presenting the Second Law of Thermodynamics. To those who may not know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time (S6). My opponent fails to clarify the reasoning behind why the Second Law of Thermodynamics deems evolution impossible. However, regardless, I will rebut this claim.

According to Biologos, a website that publishes articles on modern science, "a common argument against biological evolution is that the theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The second law says that disorder, or entropy, always increases or stays the same over time. How then can evolution produce more complex life forms over time? The answer is that the second law is only valid in closed systems with no external sources of energy. Since the Earth receives continual energy from the Sun, the second law does not apply," (S7). Therefore, because evolution is not some sort of process which takes place in a closed area, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply.

IV. Prebiotic Molecules and Abiotic Synthesis

Prebiotic Molecules: molecules believed to be the chemical and environmental precursors of organic life

Abiotic Synthesis: making compounds using non-living molecules (S8)

It is believed that prebiotic molecules were responsible for the creation of life on Earth, being the raw materials from which living cells were formed. Prebiotic molecules are found in meteorites (S9). Assuming that the Earth was hit by meterorites millions, even billions, of years ago, we can assume that some prebiotic molecules landed on Earth. Molecules containing the four elements, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen, can synthesize amino acids, carbohydrates, nucleic acids and other key compounds for life (S10).

Prebiotic molecules can create organic molecules such as cells and amino acids through abiotic synthesis. Abiotic synthesis can be demonstrated through the famous Miller-Urey Experiment. The Miller-Urey Experiment was an experiment conducted by biochemists, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. The experiment showed that several organic compounds could be formed spontaneously by simulating the conditions of Earth's early atmosphere. In the website, Windows to the Universe, the experiment is described as "an apparatus which held a mix of gasses similar to those found in Earth's early atmosphere over a pool of water, representing Earth's early ocean. Electrodes delivered an electric current, simulating lightning, into the gas-filled chamber. After allowing the experiment to run for one week, they analyzed the contents of the liquid pool. They found that several organic amino acids had formed spontaneously from inorganic raw materials. These molecules collected together in the pool of water to form coacervates," (S11). The Miller-Urey Experiment demonstrated that substances, such as prebiotic molecules, had the potential to create organic life, given the conditions on Earth's early atmosphere.


V. Conclusion

Confident that my argument has demonstrated that the Bible is inaccurate, and therefore not a "sacred" text or one from a divine being, I can conclude that faith is no more than a belief or assumption that the Bible is correct, not by any sort of Divine influence.

VI. Sources:
S1) https://www.ancient.eu...

S2) http://www.theoi.com...
S3) http://mentalfloss.com...
S4) https://answersingenesis.org...
S5) http://www.youngearth.org...
S6) http://www.allaboutscience.org...
S7) http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...
S8) http://study.com...
S9) https://www.merriam-webster.com...
S10) http://www.agenciasinc.es...
S11) http://www.windows2universe.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
JonHouser

Pro

Let it be known that this is not the topic I designed this debate to follow, so I am not putting a lot of effort into it. If at some point I were to engage in a debate with my opponent's argument as the central theme, I will put a lot more effort into defending my position. However, as he requested that I put some of my comment evidence into the body of this debate, I will list some very basic resources below.

Sunlight kills microorganisms, it does not create them. (1) The early earth atmosphere did not have enough ozone to block the UV radiation that destroys DNA, and that ozone layer did not form for about 2 Billion years after life supposedly formed (if you use evolution's time scale) (2, 3), therefore life could not have formed in the early Earth environment.
Energy applied to an already ordered system can maintain the order of that system, but the addition of raw energy (sunlight, lightning, meteor impact, etc) damages the existing order and causes that order to break down (4, 5), it does not increase the order.

1. http://www.spectralinnovations.com......
2. http://www.csun.edu......
3. http://www.albany.edu......
4. http://www.icr.org......
5. http://www.christiananswers.net......
6. http://www.apologeticspress.org......
CosmoJarvis

Con

What a pity! My opponent practically ceded from the debate, saying "I am not putting a lot of effort into [the debate]." Clearly, my opponent fails to bring any solid evidence of his own proving that faith is real. His only evidence arefew Biblical texts, to which I responded by discussing how the Bible is not a valid piece of information for numerous reasons. He failed to refute my claims, and could not make any of his own that further supports his argument.

Irregardless of the arguments which he presented in Round Three, he failed to present anything that rebutes any of my specific points or support his own argument about faith and such. In fact, his claim about how "sunlight kills microorganisms" is not entirely true. Yes, sunlight, or UV rays, can harm or kill microorganisms, but only if these organisms are exposed to the UV rays for particularly long times. This is why we're given protection such as sunscreen when we go outside during the Summer for long periods of time.

Being that we're nearing the end of our debate, I am unsure if my opponent wishes to proceed and make an attempt at supporting his argument, but I do not mind. I do believe, however, that it is such a damper that a debate with such potential was cut short due to mass confusion and Pro's failure to present arguments of his own with proper evidence.
Debate Round No. 3
JonHouser

Pro

And I find it sad that Con feels the need to hijack debates on religion in order to find a market for his evolutionist nonsense. I said from the beginning that this debate assumes the validity of the Bible. The only reference needed for this debate is the Bible. It is a waste of my time to debate the foundational assumptions of the case. If you did not accept the idea that the Bible is the infallible Word of God (not stated in the opening, but implied by the positions), then you should not have accepted the debate.
CosmoJarvis

Con

Ah, what an odd debate. I felt especially proud of my arguments, providing scientific evidence and valid sources to support my thesis on why faith is not a real thing. My opponent is complaining and prattling about how me and my logic is "highjacking his debate." He also complains about how, in this debate, we must assume that the Bible is true, even though he never mentioned this rule in the beginning of the debate. Furthermore, he babbles on about how the Bible and God's words are "infallible." I find this awfully funny, seeing as my opponent struggled to provide any evidence on how these things are "infallible" and real.

My opponent struggled to refute my claims and failed to create an argument of his own, and in his last efforts to try and "win" the debate, being the unsportsmanlike person he is, my opponent concluded the debate in the most uncivil way possible, resorting to complain about how I was no less than a brute impeding onto other people's precious debates. Good debate, Jonny.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Great debate, Jonny
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
"And I find it sad that Con feels the need to hijack debates on religion in order to find a market for his evolutionist nonsense. I said from the beginning that this debate assumes the validity of the Bible."
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Pathetic.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Great evidence. Maybe you should put that in your argument, yeah?
Posted by JonHouser 1 year ago
JonHouser
Sunlight kills microorganisms, it does not create them. (1) The early earth atmosphere did not have enough ozone to block the UV radiation that destroys DNA, and that ozone layer did not form for about 2 Billion years after life supposedly formed (if you use evolution's time scale) (2, 3), therefore life could not have formed in the early Earth environment.
Energy applied to an already ordered system can maintain the order of that system, but the addition of raw energy (sunlight, lightning, meteor impact, etc) damages the existing order and causes that order to break down (4, 5), it does not increase the order.

1. http://www.spectralinnovations.com...
2. http://www.csun.edu...
3. http://www.albany.edu...
4. http://www.icr.org...
5. http://www.christiananswers.net...
6. http://www.apologeticspress.org...
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
And I suppose you have evidence to properly support your statements?
Posted by JonHouser 1 year ago
JonHouser
Sunlight kills microorganisms, it does not create them. Just adding energy does not cause an increase in the order in a system. There must be an ordering force in addition to the energy input to increase the organization in a system, open or closed. Nothing, ever, becomes more ordered and more refined naturally. It always takes a reasoned, thinking, intelligent input to make it more ordered. Life is the ultimate order. You cannot get life spontaneously from disorder.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
I believe that people fail to realize that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to evolution because this law only applies in controlled, closed environments with no external sources of energy. However, evolution does not take place in a closed environment, and there are many external sources of energy such as sunlight.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
I ask that my opponent use reliable sources and information to present a more reliable and provocative argument for both the benefit of yourself and spectators to confirm that your points are valid and not baseless statements. For example, though your claim on how the Second Law of Thermodynamics was a very notable and exceptional point (and I applaud you on that argument), you failed to provide any reason behind it. Therefore, I was able to quickly smite it down with my own evidence countering yours.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Let us see what the voters and spectators have to say of this, then.
No votes have been placed for this debate.