The Instigator
Sotiras
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

God Exists Only in the Minds of His Followers

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Sotiras
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,680 times Debate No: 14835
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (1)

 

Sotiras

Pro

Let me clarify my position, so as to make it clear for my opponent:

My belief is that God, or more specifically the God of either the Bible, is a figment of imagination. I do not intend to argue against a, "metaphorical Bible" Christian. That is to say, saying that the Bible is a metaphorical story open to interpretation. I wish to debate with someone opposed to my own argument that the God of the Christian Bible does not exist, and that the Bible is an incredibly inaccurate historical document, an almost invariably fallacious text of science, and ranked among the worst possible sources in existence to derive your morality from.

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate, and advise that they use the first round to bring forth evidence to support their case. I feel they deserve a bit of a head start.
larztheloser

Con

My opponent has a bit of a habit of making amazing topics, so thanks! Today I will be arguing three facts, which are drawn from my opponent's introduction to the topic.

1. God exists
2. Bible is accurate (historically and scientifically)
3. Bible is a good source of morality

However, given that the resolution specifically is about God's existence, the first argument should be more important than the other two in the voter's final judgments. Let's begin!

My arguments are:

1. God exists
1.1 Descartes Argument

It is impossible for a being to be all-perfect, all-knowing etc and not exist. Therefore such a being must exist. Invented by philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes.

1.2 The Lewis Argument
If there was no God to create the universe, then the universe must have been an accident. If the universe is an accident, so is our thinking. If our thinking is an accident, we have no reason to believe it. This is absurd because it contradicts the premise that the universe exists. The only "way out" is to modify the first premise. Tertium non datur. Therefore there was a God to create the universe. Invented by philosopher and writer C.S. Lewis.

1.3 The Pascal Argument
Either God exists or it does not. If we believe it exists, rewards are huge or naught. If we don't believe it exists, rewards are negative or naught. Therefore only belief in God can be rationally justified. Invented by mathematician and logician Blaire Pascal.

1.4 The Kant Argument
Any attempt to refute God that holds any weight relies on logic. Therefore the argument presupposes the existence of logic. Logical truths cannot be proven without reference to God. Therefore any argument against God presupposes the existence of God. Invented by philosopher and all-round smart person Immanual Kant.

2. Bible is accurate
2.1 Burden of Proof
I cannot reasonably, in 8000 characters, prove every single Bible statement. Therefore in this round, I will merely demonstrate that the Bible contains scientific truth, and ask that my opponent prove that there is at least one fallacious statement. If voters still believe, after reading all my analysis, that the bible contains fallacies, they would do well to read the extensive collections of research at http://www.rationalchristianity.net..., http://carm.org..., http://www.godandscience.org... and http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org...

2.2 Historically
2.2.1 Jesus

According to the Bible, Jesus performed miracles in front of hundreds of witnesses and appeared to hundreds more after his death. Nothing about this writing suggests legendary development - it was either a legend all along or the truth. Many people who were hostile to Jesus (ie Paul, Jewish authorities) could have disproved the Jesus hypothesis by proving the Gospels inaccurate. As it so happens, we don't have any record of anyone doubting the accuracy of the Gospel narratives for about 200 years, and then only indirectly. To this day, there are no known contemporaneous conflicting accounts with the Gospels.

2.2.2 Israel Narrative
The bible contains numerous books about the development of the nation of Israel. Again, we have no known contemporaneous conflicting accounts. Furthermore, the accounts are ruthless in portraying Israel as she was - which is often in a very negative light. This is strong evidence that the stories are intended to be read as historical accounts, not fairy tales.

2.3 Scientifically

The bible is filled with hundreds of statements. All of them agree with established scientific theory. Let me show some examples. Time magazine: "Most cosmologists ... agree that the biblical account of creation ... may be uncannily close to the truth." After all, it tells of a big bang (Genesis 1), an expanding universe (Isiah 40:22), empty space (Job 26:7), air having weight (Job 28:25), each star being unique (1 Corinthians 15:41), ocean springs (Job 38:16), dinosaurs (Genesis 1:21 - the Hebrew for whales is the same as that for dragons, which is the root word of dinosaur), cave men (Job 30:5&6), precise dimensions for a ridiculously float-able boat (reconstructions of Noah's Ark prove it could withstand waves three times as high as a typical tsunami - see S.W. Hong et al, "Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway") and many more truths. Every one of these facts was only discovered by science within the last 300 years, often at a cost of billions of dollars. They need simply have picked up a $10 bible. I guess noted physicist Dr. Donald DeYoung sums it up best when he says "When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate."

3. Bible is a good source of morality
The bible teaches many things, but let us first examine the 10+2 commandments as the ultimate moral compass.
1. Only have one God <- gives spiritual certainty in life
2. No idols <- encourages rationality (idolization clouds judgment)
3. Don't swear <- encourages common courtesy
4. Respect Sabbaths <- encourages balance in life, take time out to relax
5. Honor parents <- encourages reciprocity - they helped you, you help them
6. Don't kill <- I guess you'll concede this, given your arguments in our last debate, where you asserted this is a "universal" moral law
7. No adultery <- Encourages chastity and restraint
8. No stealing <- Encourages personal responsibility and public safety
9. No lying <- Encourages fair justice
10. No coveting <- Coveting is unhealthy, can lead to greater temptation easily
+1. Love your God <- religion should have meaning; otherwise, why do it?
+2. Love your neighbor <- as the Maori proverb goes "What is the greatest thing in this world? 'Tis people, 'tis people, 'tis people!"
Once again, it would be impossible in 8000 characters to go through every moral imperative of the bible, so I again ask my opponent to clarify those which he disagrees with so that this debate can move forward.

Conclusion
God exists. No doubt about it. The bible can be historically and scientifically verified, and I will do much more to prove this once my opponent begins his criticism. I say the same for the goodness of the bible as a source of morality. Now, I'd like to hand over to my opponent, that he may open his case.
Debate Round No. 1
Sotiras

Pro

I'd just like to point out that I find it strange that my opponent's profile says he is also an atheist... and he is arguing for the existence of God? You could've at least clarified you were being a devil's advocate, but anyways, moving on.

I will number my rebuttals according to the numbering designated by my opponents arguments, to avoid confusion.

1. God Does not Exist

1.1 Descartes Argument
This argument makes the assumption that something CAN exist that is utterly perfect. Absolute, all-around perfection is an utter irrationality, which disqualifies this argument.

1.2 Lewis Argument
"If there was no God to create the Universe, then the universe must have been an accident." Actually, no. This is a straw man, as God is not the only conceivable cause for the existence of the universe, and he is one of the less rational ones. Big Bang, String, Mulitverse theory, etc. Do NOT say the Universe is an "accident," but rather a result of rigid, and not yet fully understood natural laws pertaining to existence. Thus disqualifying this theory from its very first line.

1.3 Pascal Argument
Also known as Pascal's Wager, this seems to be flaunted about a lot, when in fact there's a pretty big hole in the logic. Pascal's Wager basically states that you're, "better safe than sorry," but if there were truly an all-knowing God, surely it would be a simple matter for him to root out all the people who were believing in him, "just in case" he existed. Also, a hypothetically perfect being would not need to rule by fear, and God very clearly wants people to fear him. (Making the God of the Bible a confirmed megalomaniacal tyrant, therefore imperfect, and not God at all) This argument has also been disqualified.

1.4 Kant Argument
Kant presupposes that God must be the intrinsic source of logic, but no evidence supports this. This utterly nullifies his assertion that logic presupposes God. HE presupposes God. Argument disqualified.

2. Bible is inaccurate


2.1 Burden of Proof
"I... ask that my opponent prove there is at least one fallacious statement."
I'll make it four, for completeness' sake.
1) Worldwide Flood (Noah's Flood)
No geological evidence, not enough water to completely flood the Earth, Noah and family would commit incest to repopulate the Earth.
2) Adam and Eve/ Garden of Eden
No supporting evidence, evolution proven, Adam and Eve bore only sons, meaning the human race would have gone extinct in a single generation.
3) Age of Earth
~6100 years Biblically
~4.54 billion[1] years in reality, via radiometric dating.
4) Bible claims itself perfect word of God
Utterly negated by the 3 previous arguments.
2.2 Historically
2.2.1 Jesus
There are no historical accounts of any of the major events detailed in Jesus' life, despite the meticulous record keeping of that era. In fact, the first Gospel wasn't written until 40 years or more after Jesus' supposed death[2]. Zero secular records of Jesus ever having existed.
2.2.2 Israel Narrative
The development of Israel. An utterly unmiraculous thing, which would be expected in any book trying to sound historical that was written at the time. This is not proof that the Bible is an incredibly accurate book.
2.3 Scientifically
The Bible does NOT align perfectly with science.
The Big Bang is definitely NOT what was being written about in Genesis 1.
Isaiah 40: 22 "He sits enthroned above the vault of the Earth and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; He stretches out the heavens like a veil, spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." The Universe is not, nor is it like a tent.
Job 26: 7
"He stretches out the North over empty space; and suspends the Earth over nothing at all." North is a portion of atmosphere. Space is a vacuum, not nothing at all.
Job 28: 25
"He has weighed out the wind, and fixed the scope of the waters" No allegation of gravitational weight. Reference to proportioning of air.
1 Corinthians 15: 41
"The sun has a splendor of its own, so has the moon, and the stars have theirs. Even among the stars, one differs from another in brightness." Different intensities of light amongst stars = common sense. The sun should not have been set apart, considering it is a star itself. The moon has no "splendor', it is just reflecting the "splendor" of a star, our sun.
Job 38: 16
"Have you entered into the sources of the sea, or walked about in the depths of the abyss?" And we're expected to consider this a scientifically valid assertion of ocean springs?
Genesis 1: 21
"God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of swimming creatures with which the water teems, and all kinds of winged birds." Where does it mention dinosaurs, again?
Job 30: 5 & 6
"They were banished from among men, with an outcry like that against a thief - To dwell on the slopes of the wadies, in caves of sand and stone." Not quite the right definition of cave men, I think.
3. The Bible is a Terrible Source of Morality
Isaiah 13:16 "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."
Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death..."
Deut 21:10-12 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails..."
Not exactly a perfect source of morality.
Source(s):
[2] - Attached Video
larztheloser

Con

I'd just like to point out that I find it strange Sotiras is stalking my religious affiliations. I would, however, like to thank him for opening his case. Since this numbering system is working so well, I'll keep at it.

1. God exists
1.1 Descartes Argument
Con's counter: nothing CAN exist which is perfect
My opponent provides no evidence to substantiate this case. Prima face, if something must exist it follows that it can exist. Unless my opponent proves the contrary, this argument stands. His blind assertions won't suffice.

1.2 Lewis Argument
Con's counter: natural laws are not accidents
Well then, natural laws explaining the creation of the universe are there on purpose (the antonym of accident). If they have a purpose, something must have given it that purpose. It needs to be really powerful, timeless and spaceless. I suggest God.
It is interesting to note that my opponent's claimed alternative theories have nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Multiverse theory states there are other universes, and has nothing to do with our one. String theory explains some sub-atomic behavior, not universe creation. Big bang theory explains the rapid expansion of the universe moments after it was created, not the creation event itself. In fact, there is no scientific theory that explains the creation of the universe and is backed by evidence. The best theories are just guesswork, thus no more likely than the God hypothesis.

1.3 Pascal Argument
Con's counter 1: God doesn't like people believing "just-in-case"
Actually, God couldn't care less why you believe. In the Bible it is written that ALL who truly believe are saved. No special exceptions are made for those converted by Pascal's argument. Furthermore, this is not a logical flaw, as my opponent asserts, but an example of my opponent putting himself in God's head. We'll see more of this shortly...

Con's counter 2: A perfect being need not rule by fear
This is unrelated to the Pascal argument. However, as it is potentially contrary to the Descartes argument, I'll deal with it anyway. My opponent claims that his limited mind knows something about the qualities possessed by a perfect entity. I argue that it is impossible to hypothesize a perfect being. Therefore, my opponent is simply stabbing in the dark when he talks of the personality traits of a perfect being, again effectively dictating to God how he thinks a perfect being should behave.
400 years ago, political scientist and statesman Niccolo Machiavelli's essay "Il Principe" examined hundreds of leaders and found the most successful (and, therefore perhaps, more "perfect") were those who were feared and loved. God demands our love and our fear, time and time again, in the Bible. This proves that my opponent's subjective judgment is perhaps not the best measure of perfection.

1.4 Kant Argument
Con's counter: No evidence that God is source of logic
Actually, there is very strong evidence. That would be the lack of any other source of logic. Don't believe me? Ok, then: where else would logic come from? Without telling voters this, the argument is clearly not disqualified.

2. Bible is accurate
2.1 Purported inaccuracies
2.1.1 Great flood
Plenty of geological evidence. Rocks layers far too diverse to account for uniformitarian model. Fossil layers more consistent with flood geology than any other model. Strong evidence of sudden shrinkage in gene pool at some point due to adversity. Further reading: http://www.thebibleistheotherside.org... and http://www.answersincreation.org...

2.1.2 Adam and Eve

Your whole case here presupposes evolution. There is no evidence for human evolution. The fossil record is ape, ape, man. Besides, you ignore well-known problems with the evolution theory, such as the problem of chirality. It is a lie to say evolution is "proven."

2.1.3 Age of Earth
The Bible does not state the age of the Earth. Your figure of 6500 is therefore non-Biblical. Therefore the Bible is still right.

2.1.4 Bible claims it is the word of God
Utterly rebutted by the previous three rebuttals (:

2.1.5 No scientific inaccuracies given by my opponent.

2.2 Historically
2.2.1 Jesus
Zero secular records is wrong. Josephus gives two mentions, at least one of which is probably authentic. Three Roman authors give brief mentions. The Gospels are based, at least in part, on earlier sources, whose individual style can be discerned. Several known non-canonical gospels predate the canonical ones. Many other works are likely lost. 20 years after the event was a pretty common time for people to write histories of it. Even today, historical accounts of World War 2 did not become largely available until the 1960s, but that is no reason to deny World War 2.

2.2.2 Israel Narrative
Point conceded by my opponent, even if he denies the importance of over half the books of the Bible, which specifically concern the Israel narrative.

2.3 Scientifically
2.3.1 Big Bang
Genesis 1 speaks of a creation event. This was denied by mainstream science and athiests until Edwin Hubble.

2.3.2 Universe not like a tent

It's a place we live, erected by God. That's how it's like a tent.

2.3.3 North is atmosphere, Vacuum is not nothing
North is atmosphere STRETCHED OUT OVER empty space (with Earth on the other side). A vacuum is the absence of matter (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

2.3.4 Reference to proportioning of air, not weight
Wind has weight. That sentence has nothing to do with proportioning.

2.3.5 Different intensities of light amongst stars = common sense
But to say that no two stars have the same intensity is not, and wasn't proven until the 1950s.

2.3.6 The moon has no splendor, Sun just a star
Splendor is subjective. Structure of verse hardly scientific criticism.

2.3.7 No ocean springs asserted
"Sources" is usually rendered "springs."

2.3.8 Where does it mention dinosaurs?
Where your bible says "sea monsters" (KJB says whales). You'll find the same word rendered "dragon" another 21 times if you look it up.

2.3.9 People living in caves not the definition of cave men?
Really? Oh. Well, what is the definition of cave men?

3. Morality
3.1 Isaiah 13:16
Not a moral law; speaking of Babylon. Read Isiah 13:1.

3.2 Leviticus 20:9
Is this not the same as "The wages of sin is death?" God is just, and will reward you according to whether you kept his commandments. This rule does not permit human killing.

3.3 Deut 21:10-12
The woman is a symbol for all beautiful material, won after battle (http://www.barmitzva.org...). The passage tells you to take care of it. Where's the moral problem with this?
Debate Round No. 2
Sotiras

Pro

I still find it strange that my opponent, whose profile declares them an atheist, is vehemently defending God, while not saying they are a Devil's Advocate. Either clarify that, or change your profile, because I am perplexed by this. Moving on.

1. God Does Not Exist

1.1 Descartes Argument
Absolute perfection, which is what God claims to have, would in effect make everything in existence perfect, as a perfect thing would be perfectly willing and perfectly able to do this. This is not the case, therefore the "perfect" God of the Bible is an innate fallacy.

1.2 Lewis Argument
My opponent presupposes that natural laws have a purpose, and therefore were given a purpose. This is a strawman, as they do NOT have a presupposed purpose. They simply are. They are rigid and unchangeable, and couldn't have been "created" as anything that could conceivably create them would still answer to the laws that govern existence.

1.3 Pascal's Wager
Pascal's wager does not make a TRUE believer. Pascal's wager tries to coerce nonbelievers into submission. This is a refined way of saying, "possessing beliefs contrary to my own will submit you to eternal torment." In the second part of his rebuttal, and to my disgust, my opponent defends rule by fear. Societies that rules through terror and coercion are invariably condemned by history. Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Franco Francisco, and Fidel Castro. These dictators are referred to as such in History textbooks. They are condemned for their use of terror. God did not "invent" morality. God would answer to morality. Despite the massacre of atheists and homosexuals being supported in the Bible, a CHILD could tell that would be wrong.

1.4 Kant Argument
My opponent says that there is strong evidence that God is the source of logic, and of course doesn't source it... then why are 93% of surveyed scientists atheist? Those who have the deepest understanding of the world around us dismiss the idea of the God of the Bible. Logic would come from the evolution of intelligence to compensate for our meager form when we transitioned from tree to ground-dwelling animals. This is MY evidence, and I haven't seen my opponent's yet.

2. Bible is inaccurate

2.1.1 Great Flood
No, there is NO scientifically relevant data suggesting a worldwide flood, otherwise it would be mentioned in SCIENCE texts, which it isn't. The only two websites cited are thebibleistheotherside.org and answersincreation.org, and we are expected to believe they will have any scientific insight? The religious gather facts to support a conclusion, while scientists draw conclusions based on facts. I ask that my opponent try to cite a scientific site that supports a worldwide flood. Then I may be convinced.

2.1.2 Adam and Eve
I apologize, but it is sometimes hard for me to keep my temper in check when someone insists that evolution is disproven. Please just read the citations I make, otherwise I fear I may blow my top.[1][2]
2.1.3 Age of the Earth
Actually, my opponent has utterly lied for his argument. After being studied by Christians, it was discovered the Bible's age of the Earth IS ~6100 Years, which makes my opponent's arguments fallacious and irrelevant.[3]
2.1.4 Bible's Claim to Perfect word of God
Destroyed by previous arguments.
2.2 Historically
2.2.1 Jesus
It is possible a man by the name of Jesus existed around the time of the Biblical Jesus, but if such a amn had performed such myriad miracles as he did, and if he had been publicly crrucified, there would probably be records of THAT, which there isn't. If Jesus existed, he was just a nice guy, not the son of a God that doesn't exist.
2.2.2 Israel Narrative
Again, completely irrelevant to an ontological argument.

2.3 Scientifically
2.3.1 Big Bang
Where does it say, "And then god layed out the heavens and the Earth in a massive expansion of matter, and it took billions of years to cool. And he saw it was good."
2.3.2 Universe like a tent
No evidence it was erected by god. It is nebulous[4], and not like a tent. Moving on.
2.3.3 Space is vacuum
"A perfect vacuum would be one with no particles in it at all, which is impossible to achieve in practice.[5]" Perfect vacuum is impossible. Moving on.
2.3.4 Air has weight
"He has weighed out the wind, and fixed the scope of the waters" Doesn't sound like a scientific statement to me. Sounds like mumbo-jumbo that a scientist wouldn't look at and say, "Oh, I guess air is affected by gravity!" Moving on.
2.3.5 Stars' Light Intensity
Common sense of no perfect similarity. "A splendor all its own" does not equate to "Every star is unique"
2.3.6 Subjective Splendor, Sun = Star
The Bible made a distinction, and must not have known that the sun was just a star. It must not have known that the moon's "splendor" was just a reflection.
2.3.7 Ocean Springs
I thought you yourself said not to use semantics as an argument?
2.3.8 "Dragons"
Another argument of semantics. If God created dinosaurs, why weren't they saved from Naoh's flood? They breathed through their nose.
2.3.9 Cave men
A man in a cave =/= A Caveman. Caveman refers to a Neanderthal,[6] which is NOT mentioned in the Bible.
3. Morality
3.1 Babylon?
So, because these children are from Babylon, it was okay for them to be dashed on a rock on front of their parents? I think not.
3.2 Death =/= Death
Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death..." My opponent states: "This rule does not permit human killing." Of course it doesn't. Just like you didn't hit someone if you hit them! Makes just as much sense as what you said.
3.3 Beautiful, beautiful plunder
Deut 21:10-12 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails..." And my opponent says: "The woman is a symbol for all beautiful material..." So... you marry and shave a pile of gold, too? Methinks the beautiful woman is symbolic of a beautiful woman.
3.4 Bonus Passage!

2 Kings 2:23-24:

"And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

Perfectly justifiable! Right? You call my prophet bald, I let two bears make hamburger out of you!

4. The Invisible Pink Unicorn
I cannot "disprove" God. Then again, you can't "disprove" The Invisible Pink Unicorn. Why? Because, conveniently, they are beyond the 5 senses! So go ahead, try your hardest to disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn! I bet he'll end up looking A LOT like God.



larztheloser

Con

I'll explain my (lack of) spirituality in a comment. Let's continue...

1. God exists
1.1 Descartes Argument
Con's new counter: A perfect thing would be perfectly willing to make everything perfect
True. But it might have legitimate reasons not to. If we take perfection to be something unlimited, then by definition it cannot be limited and therefore cannot be defined (to define means to limit). So God might want to limit some things to create new things, by limiting the perfect. The creation of new things may be desirable to a perfect being.
Once again, voters, note that this is simply an attempt by my opponent to boss God around and tell it what it should have done. In fact, my opponent's limited mind, with no comprehension of a perfect mind, is really just saying wild guesses. His are guesses, but mine are based upon what actually happened and therefore we know to be the truth. And the truth is not incompatible with perfection.
1.2 Lewis Argument
Con's re-hashed counter: My opponent presupposes that natural laws have a purpose
No I don't. My argument specifically presupposes that natural laws DON'T have a purpose. The common way to write "not on purpose" is "by accident.” It is not a strawman to say that laws either have a purpose or they don't, especially if they lead to a valid conclusion.
My opponent also appeals to his "God must follow the laws of existence" line here. No he doesn't. God defines the laws of existence. If I got to define the rules of chess, need I play by the rules? No. I'd be able to do anything I want. I'd just make up a new rule to cover for it.
1.3 Pascal Argument
Con's new counter: Pascal's wager does not make a TRUE believer
How do you know? It is foolish to lump all people converted by one argument into the true believers category and another into the false believers category. I’ve made this point before. Again, my opponent is still putting himself in God's mind.
Next my opponent criticised my "love and fear" analysis. First, I do not claim to speak for God, I am simply providing a way in which a perfect being might justifiably justify their actions. Second, my opponent continually confuses terror and fear, which is not the same thing. Third, my opponent claims God is not above moral standards. Wrong. See my chess analysis above. Fourth, the emotional appeal concerning the moral sense of a child. The validity of moral claims is based upon whether we can rule out the alternative. Without a certain God giving us morality, we cannot rule out the alternative. Therefore without God, there are no moral claims. Therefore without God, there is no morality.
1.4 Kant Argument
Con's new counter: Why are 93% of surveyed scientists atheist?
I think you'll find that among people that actually study the Bible (ie theologians) the number of atheists is much, much lower.
Con's other new counter: Logic would come from the evolution of intelligence
But that doesn't prove logical truths. One cannot use intelligence to prove logic as intelligence, under your model, would presuppose some degree of logic. It would be arguing in a circle. But logic can be proven under my alternative model, and that's God. Why? Because God exists outside the scope of logic - God "sets the rules" once again. Therefore it does not violate the "arguing in a circle" problem with your model.
2. Bible is Accurate
2.1 Possible Inaccuracy
2.1.1 Great Flood
Con's counter: Read science texts
If you want a website of scientists who support the theory, look no further than carm.org, under the research pages. The reason it isn't mentioned in science texts is that secular scientists rarely investigate biblical claims.
2.1.2 Adam and Eve
Con's counter: read my sources
I will not respond to arguments you do not make, so if you need to blow your top, so be it. I stand by everything I said.
2.1.3 Age of the Earth
Your citation is but one of many interpretations. There is even some significant biblical evidence for old-Earth creationism, and some movements that claim the creation of man is the same as the creation of spirit. The point is that the Bible does not clearly state the age of the Earth. Given this fact, all we can do is interpret the scripture and extrapolate from it. However, there is no way of gauging the accuracy of this extrapolation. For this reason, none of the major churches have an official stance on the matter. And so I did not lie.
2.2 Historical Accuracy
2.2.1 Jesus
Con's case: No records of Jesus' miracles in secular texts
Actually, you'll find that ALL of the secular texts I cited make reference to the miracles.
Con's other case: No records of Jesus' crucifixion in secular texts
About 50 years after the death of Jesus, the temple at Jerusalem was burnt to the ground by the Romans. Josephus describes how all of the temple records were destroyed.
2.2.2 Israel Narrative
Con's case: "completely irrelevant to an ontological argument"
Errm ... yip! I'm confused because I wasn't making an ontological argument.
2.3 Scientific Accuracy
2.3.1 Big bang
All I said was that the Bible says "In the beginning." This was in marked contrast to the earlier atheist position "There was no beginning." If you don't call creating space-time in one day a "rapid expansion," then I don't know what will satisfy you.
2.3.2 Universe like a tent
The boundary is in fact a four-dimensional (plus time) shape. A shape which, by the way, is impossible to model because scientists are not yet certain where the edge of the universe is.
2.3.3 Space is a vacuum
I never said it was a perfect vacuum, and neither did the bible. But there is so little there that in common parlance it is safe to call it a vacuum, or to say there is no matter. It could have said "Aside from one atom of hydrogen per square kilometer, the space above the world is empty." But as the Hebrews had no word for hydrogen or atom, and as the effect of that one atom is negligible, it is safe to ignore it. God conveyed the accurate idea to people.
2.3.4 Air has weight
If scientists DIDN'T just dismiss this verse as mumbo-jumbo we would have discovered this important fact much sooner.
2.3.5 Starlight
"A splendor all its own" actually is equivalent to "every star has a unique splendor" and therefore "every star is unique."
2.3.6 Grammar criticism
Don't jump to conclusions about knowledge based on sentence construction. Base it upon what is actually written. It says the sun/stars each have a unique splendor. It said the moon has a unique splendor. This is all true. Nothing more to be read in to it.
2.3.7 Ocean Springs
I'm not using semantics. I'm using the actual word of God. Make a proper counterargument.
2.3.8 Dinosaurs
Not saved from Noah's flood as a giant meteor had already killed them. I thought you scientists already knew that?
2.3.9 Cave men
Men once lived in caves. They lived alongside other people who had bone disease. Around the 1950s people thought it would be funny to connect them with evolution and call them Neanderthals. The fraud was eventually discovered some decades later. They could have simply read a bible to see that the Neanderthals did not exist.
3. Bible is Moral
3.1 OK to kill kids?
Yes, for God it is. God can kill adults too. For people it is immoral, but God has power over all things - including moral power.
3.2 OK to kill cursers?
Yes. Indeed, your quote tells us that God surely will. It does not say "Kill swearers," but says "Swearers surely will be killed [by God]." What is so nonsensical about that?
3.3 OK to prize plunder?
Yes. Treasure it, because it is a gift of God. Put aside your wild interpretation and just agree with both the Jewish and the Christian authorities who would disagree with you.
3.4 OK to insult God? (BONUS ROUND!!!)
No. If you try to show up God with your mocks, wait until God mocks you after you die. So, where is the wrong message in that?
4. The Invisible Pink Unicorn
Well, I cannot "disprove" the IPU, but I can "prove" God. My proofs above don't work for the IPU!
Debate Round No. 3
Sotiras

Pro

My opponent has confirmed he doesn't believe in God... but seems to be passionately arguing that he exists... I am thoroughly confused.

Rebuttals:

1. God does not Exist

1.1 Descartes Argument
My opponent concedes that what I have said is true, and prefaces their counterargument with the word "might." My argument stands that perfection's existence is irrational.

1.2 Lewis Argument
Con has argued that if the laws of nature and physics have no purpose, then our thinking is an accident. To be blunt: No, it doesn't. If they're an accident or not is no concern to reasoning. Reasoning is our understanding of existence as we know it. Logic is sound whether or not existence is an accident, as logic does not depend on the origin, but on the consistency of natural laws.

1.3 Pascal's Wager
Pascal's wager cannot be an argument for the God of the Bible. Why? Pascal's Wager is just an argument for God, period. Pascal's Wager applies equally to every religion that has ever existed. Allah and Zeus have just as much claim to it as the God of the Bible. This argument should be excluded henceforth, and saved for a debate on God in general.

1.4 Kant Argument
"I think you'll find that among people that actually study the Bible... the number of atheists is much, much lower." Oh really? Might I see some evidence? The statistics supporting that people could honestly read the Bible from cover to cover and say, "Wow, this 'God' guy seems great!" Heck, just make it the Old Testament, where, by the way, the "God" in question is Yahweh Sabaoth, "God of the armies," otherwise known as the God of war among polytheistic Hebrews[1].

2. Bible is inaccurate

2.1 Inaccuracy

2.1.1 Great Flood
http://carm.org...: Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry... yup! Definitely just a bunch of secular scientists! That was sarcasm, for those who didn't pick it up.

2.1.2 Adam and Eve
My opponent basically said that I have no argument on the merit that I let my sources argue for me. " ...so if you need to blow your top, so be it." Very well, you asked for it.

When the Discovery Institute, an intelligent design defender, released the public statement "Dissent from Darwin," a list of scientists skeptical of evolution, which has garnered about 800 signatures fromas of 2011, The National Center for Science Education[2] began "Project Steve,"[3] which is a list of scientists with the name Steve who support evolution. Project Steve has around 1,100 Steves as of 2011, which should convince you it is a generally accepted scientific fact. If that's not enough, a study of the human genome[4] shows that there has been recent evolution in humans, which you specifically say there was no evidence for... which suggests you purposefully didn't research this at all.

2.1.3 Age of the Earth
Despite different stances, Biblical literalists generally accept young-earth creationism, which has been completely destroyed by the decay in half-lives of radioactive isotopes. If the writers knew, they would have probably included something as monumentally important as the age of existence. This implies that they did NOT know.

2.2 Historical Accuracy

2.2.1 Jesus
First Counter-Argument: Miracles Documented
Where? Mentioned as second or third-hand accounts from eyewitnesses? And this proves that he is the son of God? I think not.
Second Counter-Argument: Burning of the Temple of Jerusalem
Destruction of possible of evidence does not constitute that the evidence was comprehensive, or there at all.

2.2.2 Israel Narrative
"ontology (n.) - the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being" I think God might fall under this, and my opponent admits that the Israel narrative indeed has nothing to do with any ontological arguments.

2.3 Scientific Inaccuracy

2.3.1 Big Bang
"In the beginning" Yep! That's definitely confirmation that the Bible supports the Big Bang theory! Another instance of sarcasm. The Genesis story is unscientific beyond imagining.

2.3.2 "Like a tent"
"Four-dimensional" and "Impossible to model" I propose the Universe is NOT like a tent. You cannot confirm it is like a tent, and unconfirmed hypotheses are not science.

2.3.3 Space is a vacuum
"I never said it was a perfect vacuum, and neither did the bible." Well, the bible said "nothingness" not "vacuum." So the Bible never said vacuum AT ALL.

2.3.4 Air has weight.
If scientists took the Bible as a valid source of scientific knowledge, then they wouldn't be scientists, and they definitely wouldn't be religious.

2.3.5 Stars are Unique
Actually, that's only if you already KNEW each star was unique, then you would know to cherrypick this Bible verse and interpret it as "proof" that the writers were aware of the scientific validity in all that pretty poetry they were writing.

2.3.6 Splendorous Science
The moon has no "splendor" from a scientific standpoint, it just reflects light from the sun. It's an utterly unsplendorous hunk of rock.

2.3.7 Ocean Springs
Another example of cherrypicking a Bible verse and interpreting it to make it "proof" that the writers of the Bible had divine knowledge about some obscure natural phenomenon. This is NOT how science works, nor how it should work.

2.3.8 Dinosaurs
So the great meteor that wipes out a massive chunk of the Earth's species but magically spares a bunch of others that would be killed by such an event ISN'T mentioned in the Bible? No... no they don't mention dinosaurs in the Bible. They mention whales.

2.3.9 Neanderthals
If Neanderthals are just "men with bone disease," then why does radiometric dating place them BEFORE biblical creation? And why are these "men with bone disease" scientifically accepted as an early species of man? Because they aren't "men with bone disease," and you just lied. Again.

3. Morals
3.1 Ok to kill kids?
No. Because it wasn't God killing kids. It was people killing kids because they thought God wanted them to, which he doesn't. You, sir, just tried to justify child murder.

3.2 Ok to kill cursers?
No. It's not God killing these people. It's people killing these people, and justifying it with God. You just tried to justify premeditated first-degree murder.

3.3 Ok to prize plunder?
No. Because you didn't acknowledge the fact that this passage was indeed referring to forcing the widows of the men you'd just slaughtered in the name of God to marry you, in the name of God. This isn't a wild interpretation, it's a rational, secular interpretation.

3.4 Ok to insult God (Bonus Passage)
Aparrently, yes! I do it quite frequently, actually! Despite this, that petty, child-murdering, slavery-supporting, anti-semitic, genocidal, misogynistic, megalomaniac in the sky hasn't sent any she-bears knocking at my door! Although it was apparently alright to butcher 42 young children for making fun of someone's BALD HEAD. At this point I think it's fair to say: Just stop insisting that God is just. Even if he exists, which he doesn't, he isn't.

4. The Invisible Pink Unicorn
No, you cannot prove God, and you have not. Neither have you disproven the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Until you do, it's just as valid as God.

Source(s):

[1] - Attached Video
[2] - http://ncse.com...
[3] - http://ncse.com...
[4] - http://news.nationalgeographic.com...




larztheloser

Con

This round, my opponent has dropped 4 out of 5 of his previous arguments and ignored most of my rebuttals. Nonetheless I shall answer his new cases. I also wish to apologize for last round, where my writing was at times unclear - I had to edit heavily to meet the character restriction.

1. God exists
1.1 Descartes
Con's Counter: My opponent concedes that what I have said is true
No I didn't! I conceded that it might be true, and might not. Your argument presupposes knowledge of perfection that niether you nor I have. Thus your argument does not stand.

1.2 Lewis

Con's new counter: accidents of nature does not lead to accidents of thinking
If my opponent wishes to run this argument, he must concede that our thinking is not a part of nature. Great! Looks like somebody just conceded the existence of souls!

Con's other new counter: logic does not depend on origin
This argument has NOTHING TO DO with logic.

1.3 Pascal

Con's new counter: Not for Christian God
None of my arguments are for a Christian God. Taken together, though - the existence of God and the infallibility of the Bible - we can deduce that the Christian God is real. Note that this does not actually attack the validity of the Pascal argument at all.

1.4 Kant
Con's counter: 93%
The exact numbers of belief is irrelevant. All I need to prove is God can be the source of logic and unbelievers can have logic too. You implied that logic is related to disbelief. I think I have shown this to be false already. In fact, both believers and disbelievers can be logical. This would show that logic is more of a gift (ie from God) than a talent (ie exclusively acquired from studying science).

2. Biblical accuracy
2.1 Inaccuracy
2.1.1 Great Flood
You didn't ask for a secular scientific site, you asked for a scientific site. Of course the secular scientists won't tell you the evidence for a great flood because they're secular. Your argument is tautological.

2.1.2 Adam and Eve
Your cited study showing change over time is actually well within the level of variability for modern human DNA. You ignored my point about chilarity and the fossil record. And you committed the ad populum fallacy. Thus I win the point.

2.1.3 Age of the Earth
Just because the Bible doesn't list every single knowable fact (winning lotto numbers, every person's date of death etc) does not mean that God doesn't know them. It doesn't even imply this. Your argument is nonsense.

2.2 Historical
2.2.1 Jesus
Of course we're talking second-hand-accounts - any first hand accounts you'd dismiss as being not secular! If not, how about the Gospel of John? I agree that destruction of evidence does not prove the evidence, but it does explain why there are no records of crucifixions in ancient Judea. Except for Jesus and two robbers.

2.2.2 Israel

I'M NOT PROVING GOD in this argument. I'm saying that the bible is accurate, which you specifically denied in round one.

2.3 Scientific
2.3.1 Big bang
"In the beginning" posits a beginning. "Big bang" posits a beginning. Why are they not alike?

2.3.2 Tent
I'm not the one making the unconfirmed hypothesis - YOU ARE! You claimed the universe was not like a tent in round 2.

2.3.3 Space
Nothingness and vacuum are, in fact, synonyms. A translator can use either freely. Don't criticize the bible based on translation.

2.3.4 Air's Weight
So you're honestly saying that scientists don't rely on axioms to conduct investigations? Or are you saying that axioms from the Bible are automatically invalid? If so, why?

2.3.5 Unique Stars

I see your point about confirmation bias. But how else could the scripture possibly be interpreted? It's written very clearly that stars are unique in their splendor.

2.3.6 Splendor
A mirror image of beauty is still beautiful. A reflection of splendor is still splendorous.

2.3.7 Ocean Springs
See 2.3.5 above.

2.3.8 Dinosaurs
Once again, they mention dragons. The line "And God saw a giant meteor killing the dragons" simply did not fit, and was not important.

2.3.9 Neanderthals

Read the science before you come to rash conclusions: http://www.straight-talk.net... and http://www.creation.com...

3.Morality
3.1 Ok to kill kids?
Nope, God did kill the kids. Read your bible again. And stop bossing God around, telling us what it "doesn't" want.

3.2 Ok to kill cursers?
Once again, nowhere in the bible does it give people the authority to kill people. Here it says these people will die. It doesn't say we should kill them.

3.3 Ok to prize plunder?
If that's true, then why do even the council of Jewish rabbis I cited, whose ancestors wrote these words down, disagree with you?

3.4 Ok to insult God?

Just you watch out next time you're at the zoo! The kids were insulting God by insulting its prophet. God gave them just retribution. God will give all just retribution who insult him.

Worth noting that, as I've already shown, none of the above are actually moral laws. They are God telling us how he will behave. Moral laws apply to the behavior of people. The 10 commandments I cited are the ultimate corner-stone of moral laws and my opponent is yet to rebut them.

4. IPU
Your case is totally contingent upon point 1, meaning it makes no sense for us to argue over it separately.
Debate Round No. 4
Sotiras

Pro

I have concluded that my opponent is not an atheist, but either an atheist new to devil's advocacy, or a disguised theist. This is irrelevant to the argument, but I felt like saying it.

Final Arguments:

1. God Does not Exist

1.1 Descartes
You said "True," not "That might be true." Ignoring this, you asserted that neither you nor I have any knowledge of perfection. If this is true, then you have just as little right to assert that what you say about God is true as I do,

1.2 Lewis
"...looks like somebody just conceded the existence of souls!" This statement was, for lack of a better word, stupid. I said that logic does not require any one specific "type" of universe or existence in which to function. If our we, along with our minds, were placed in another universe, we would understand reality as it is in that universe. Logic stems from intelligence and adheres to the existence it finds itself in, as far as we can tell in our existence.

1.3 Pascal
My opponent rather covertly conceded that Pascal's wager could not only be applied to any God of any religion, but that any random imagining could have equal claim to this argument. Bob the overweight alien demands your allegiance, OR ELSE.

1.4 Kant
"...both believers and disbelievers can be logical." When did I say believers couldn't be logical? If I really believed that, would i be debateing you? What I said is that those counted among the most rational tend to lean towards disbelief. I am not asserting this as a causation, but a reasonable correlation in the intensity of its contrast. you give no evidence that logic is a gift, but I have evidence that it could be genetic[1].

2. Bible is inaccurate

2.1 Inaccuracy
2.1.1 Noah's Flood
"Of course the secular scientists won't tell you the evidence for a great flood because they're secular." Of course not! Because if they're secular, they won't distort, misrepresent, or fabricate facts to support their rediculous Biblical cast! And, for the fun of it, a new point I forgot to brought up: Inbreeding[2]! How exactly would Noah and his immediate family escape the devastating effects of incestuous intercourse, and repopulate the entire planet, with all its different races, in a matter of 4,000 years? Simple, really: He didn't.

2.1.2 Adam and Eve
"Thus I win the point." Forgot about the last round, eh? Alright then. I did not commit an ad populum fallacy, I was showing that the acceptance of evolution as a science is overwhelming. These are the people that actually test this stuff, and a staggering majority of them conclude that it is scientifically accurate. Also, that, "within the level of variability" thing gets on my nerves. Things evolve and change species. It's been scientifically verified, and has yet to be disproven. Get over it. (Also, my argument of inbreeding carries over to Adam and Eve, who had only two sons, one of whom killed the other)

2.1.3 Age of the Earth
"...winning lotto numbers..." aren't important. The age of existence is, and yet was neglected to be defined in the Bible. The Earth is over 4 billion years old, and the Bible doesn;t even make an allusion to this fact.

2.1.4 "Perfect" Bible
I just realized you'd stopped arguing this point. How sneaky of you.

2.2 Historical
2.2.1 Second-Hand accounts!
You conceded that any of your cited documents were indeed likely to be second/third-hand accounts. The Bible is not a citable source because it concerns religion, is unverifiable, and has made many disproved claims.

2.2.2 Israel Narrative
Just because part of the Bible can be verified does not mean we should blindly accept that the whole thing must therefore be perfectly true. The fact that it got SOMETHING right isn't a very strong argument.

2.3 Sceintifically
2.3.1 Big Bang
The difference being Genesis posits an unprovable God, while the theory posits a scientifically viable lack of space-time prior to the Big Bang

2.3.2 Like a Tent
"I'm not the one making the unconfirmed hypothesis..." So... it's been scientifically proven that the Universe is like a tent? No... no it hasn't.

2.3.3 Space
Vacuum =/= Perfect Vacuum, and therefore Vacuum =/= Nothingness. You are just imposing facts into the off-shaped molds of these obscure Bible quotes,

2.3.4 Air's Weight
I'm saying that air having weight ISN'T an axiom! It had to be tested to be confirmed! Things aren't axioms JUST because they're in the Bible.

2.3.5 Stars
"But how else could the scripture possibly be interpreted?" You haven't read the whole thing, have you? I thought not.

2.3.6 Splendorous!
"A mirror image of beauty is still beautiful." Not only is beauty subjective, but reflecting something beautiful wouldn't automatically warrant calling the mirror beautiful.

2.3.7 Ocean Springs
Yup, it's cherrypicked, intentfully interpreted poetry.

2.3.8 Dinosaurs
You cite no Bible verses speaking of dragons, and dinosaurs are not dragons. You also didn't explain how the meteor killed ONLY the dinosaurs.

2.3.9 "Creation Science" (Neanderthals)
"Read the science before you come to rash conclusions..." I smell a hypocrite! You cited CREATION.COM! How could a website get any more biased toward creationism than that?!

3. Morality
3.1 Okay to kill kids?
I honestly can't believe you're debating this. Why don't you go live in an Islamo-fascist country under sharia law, and see if you still think child murder can be justified?Even if the murdering scumbag does call himself God, he's still a murdering scumbag.

3.2 Okay to kill cursers?
"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death..." And you don't think they could've added, "...by God" to make sure nobody started slaughtering people? This is confirmation bias, and the Bible is in fact supporting the massacre of rebellious, angst-filled kids.

3.3 Okay to force marriage?
"...then why do[es] even the council of Jewish rabbis I cited...disagree with you?" Because they don't want to look bad.

3.4 Ok to insult God?
"God will give all just retribution who insult him." That's it. You're not an atheist, you liar. Those children weren't even isulting God. They were making fun of an insecure bald guy with anger management problems.

3.5 Slavery
Don't even try to justify the following passages. I promise you that you will make a fool of yourself if you do.

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."(Leviticus 25:44-46)
Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these?

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21)

New-Testament Slavery

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5)

4. IPU
Praise be to the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Source(s):
[1] -http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] -http://en.wikipedia.org...
larztheloser

Con

First, I'm disgusted that my opponent has resorted to ad hominum attacks because he "felt like it." He made two such attacks, once at the start, and once in 3.4. Second, I find it equally rude that my opponent keeps changing his argument, even unto the final round, and bringing up new arguments, multiple times. I will answer them, but with a tinge of sadness in my heart.

I said at the start of this debate that I would prove three things: God's existence, the existence of historical claims in the bible, the existence of scientific claims in the bible, and the goodness of the bible as a source of morality.

1. God exists
Since the start of this debate, my opponent has been trying to put himself in the mind of God, and has used that as a counter argument on all four of my arguments. Now in the final round he accuses me of putting myself in the mind of God (1.1). I have never done such a thing. I have never claimed anything about God's nature that God has not told us himself through his holy scripture.

On the Lewis argument, even to the final round, my opponent misrepresents the meaning of the word "accident," claiming that thinking is neither an accident nor on purpose - which, as I have already demonstrated, is impossible.

On the Kant argument, my opponent has failed to show an absolute source for logic, other than the subjective source of our own thinking, inherited through genetics. If the only thing that's logical is our thinking, we can't prove logic. That's arguing in a circle. I told you that in round two, and my opponent refused to counter my case.

My opponent has conceded that Pascal argument as proof that God exists. He fails to acknowledge my round four counter argument saying that it cannot be seen in isolation.

As for the Descartes argument, my opponent has no rebuttal other than to put himself in God's head again.

2. Biblical accuracy
I told my opponent to tell us where the bible was inaccurate. He gave four points, one of which was so totally irrelevant and stupid that we both dropped it (2.1.4). I then gave analysis as to why the bible is right on all these counts. Then my opponent gave analysis that my analysis had a Christian bias. Why? Because it didn't have a non-religious (secular) bias! Science is about getting the unbiased truth. This means my sources are valid. In this last round, my opponent has brought up the problem of inbreeding. First, Noah brought along his whole family, including his sons and their wives, so that's quite a population to repopulate from. Second, as for Adam and Eve, Genesis doesn't say Abel was the second-born, only that he was a second son. Maybe Eve had 1000 daughters. We just don't know, so stop assuming. Finally, my opponent claims the age of the Earth is an important fact. This is really him putting himself in God's mind again, bossing him around, telling him what to write in the Bible. Personally, I'd quite like it if the Bible said the winning lotto numbers, but I have no authority to say that to God. At the end of this debate, my opponent has failed to meet this aspect of his burden of proof.

I gave examples of both valid historical and scientific claims by the Bible. My opponent has conceded (2.2.2) that a third of the Bible is error-free history. My opponent dismisses the Jesus narrative because it concerns religion and is unverifiable. Socrates' trial is unverifiable and written by only one author instead of four, yet accepted by most secular writers, so I'm guessing that a religious text, according to my opponent, can never make a valid claim because it is religious. This is yet another example of a tautology in my opponent's argument. Other than that my opponent was unable to counter the Bible's historical claims. He found not one ancient source that contradicted the Bible in any way.

The scientific claims my opponent got more contentious over. He criticised the Bible for mentioning God alongside scientific claims (2.3.1 and 2.3.9 - of course, there is nothing scientifically invalid about the claim itself), for making a unconfirmed hypothesis (2.3.2 and 2.3.4 - I never said the Bible DID science, only that it agreed with it), and for the semantics of valid conclusions (2.3.3). He claims that picking out a claim from the Bible, however valid, does not prove the validity of the bible scientifically (2.3.5 and 2.3.7 - of course, this is just a distraction from the fact that my opponent cannot meet his burden of proof!). Finally he tries to win using un-backed-up claims (mirror images of beauty are not beautiful in 2.3.6) and ignoring my argument completely (2.3.8 - just remember what I said in round one to prove wrong my opponent's analysis here!). He adds a cunning last-round meteor shower problem, but that is a total strawman as it has nothing to do with the validity of any particular bible claim. So despite spending the vast majority of his letter count on this section, it appears that his efforts to disprove bible science remain futile.

3. Morality
I gave good analysis in round one as to why the bible is morally OK. My opponent chose to ignore that analysis and give his misguided interpretation of some passages concerning the moral nature of God, which he initially misapplied to humans. I answered this analysis with my analysis that God is above morality. In the last round, my opponent tried to salvage this case (3.2) by claiming confirmation bias. This would only be true if Israelites really DID kill rebellious kids, which, knowing kids, would be everyone. As it so happens, the Israelite tribe did not die out within one generation, so it seems my interpretation is totally correct and there is no confirmation bias. Next he accuses God of being a "murdering scumbag." That's a very nice subjective interpretation. Not like it carries any credence whatsoever. Next he claims that his interpretation is better than that of the rabbis and priests (3.3.3 and 3.3.4). He never told us why, and it's too late now. Prima face, the rabbis should know their own book better than some random guy on DDO. He has failed on all of these counts.

Finally, having already created a bonus round last round, my opponent brings forth the super-bonus round of slavery. In ancient Israel, slavery had a different meaning than it did today (http://christianthinktank.com...). "Slaves" did not mean "hard laborers," like we today would expect. "Slave" was a job, something usually contracted in to, although they were occasionally brought by foreign traders (http://www.allaboutworldview.org...). Keeping a slave was OK so long as they were well treated (see the Epistle to Philemon). Today, people remain enslaved, for example, bonded to work for banks (debt slavery). While other forms of slavery are followed to a lesser degree today, the ancient form of slavery is actually widely accepted today and pretty much never a moral issue. Definitely not cool is slave trading (1 Timothy 1:8-10) or slave collecting (Exodus 21:16). Israelites were forbidden from those evil activities, and rightly so. The slave trade of the 1700s would definitely not be allowed. Therefore this argument doesn't stack up either.

4. IPU
Again, drop it. This argument is a fallacious extension from argument one and has no bearing on the present debate.

My opponent has failed to fulfill his burden of proof and rebut mine.

Vote Con.

Amen.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by flipbuoy 1 year ago
flipbuoy
that I just know I had no choice but to best circumstances that I face in that new reality, I never expected to occur and manipulated me into being pure with good deeds as the task ive chosen cuz far as I only know its how I'd keep my consciousness alive and still me. Its like im told, but nobody or nothing said a thing to me. Its just that I "felt/know" what I have to do in order to survive. Then I said to myself Im cornerned and nowhere to go, "it" knows me all the way even before I think things. I had no choice in any way but to obey and listen(feel) and to put myself where Id rather be. Even after that I still tried to get out from being pure thinking with mind from inside and outside/ physical and mental act. It was a lot of combinations that Id have to consider if Im gonna commit to being one, I admit I don't like it but when all I know that im not gonna be piloting my own mind anymore I just had to do what I have to do in terms to goodthings. From there I considered myself being one with everything in thinking, had to go back in stone age mind where Id rather be myself living like a budha or something like that, atleast I prepared myself mentally from years to come from that overly mental awakening that Ive been challenged with. Overall its a mind game for me same for everybody who has their own path to take and choice to make. So if you ask me where Id put God its most probably in our constant minds where everyone has and differs in opinion but all in the same direction to being "good". far as I know
Posted by flipbuoy 1 year ago
flipbuoy
I have a simple solution for both parties..... My bet GOD entirely exists ONLY in out minds, as ITS the source of thoughts from being GOOD or BAD. Its present in everyone to experience what is RIGHT AND WRONG to decide which one's better that produces better outcome in you can think of in terms of progress it leads us. How else GOD would know better how to handle its people if that's the case...
Our minds are rich with contradictions from this belief that most of us fights for it to the point even young minds doesnt even got the chance grow on its natural way of thinking with it before being introduced or better said corrupted to another level of knowledge that we to realized on our "OWN".
What im saying is I probably know then better than most about God as I knew how HE/SHE/IT works that well recognize and feel its "PRESENCE" whenever weve done/achieved something that reflect us its value in return favoring us in such manner.
How I've come to this conclusion? Last time remember I experience having NOTHING/EMPTY BLANK thought if that's even the right word to name it in that very moment. That point all I have known to exist was my protective instinct to engage in a way that I only had to instinctively to salvage my mind from losing it in that situation, I have no clear direction or solution or idea as I mentioned Im having a mindless thought all I know I had to move myself and do something about it. So thats what I did... but I never prayed, all I did was to calm calm my mind and comfort myself. Because my total instinct tells me Im about to lose control over my own mind. If I had an idea that time is that Im gonna go BLANK and never return or go back in this world, brain dead probably I don't know cuz at that time its frightening enough to "JUST KNOW" that im gonna end up to which state of mind then. After I recovered my thoughts back...that same night I had experienced being in total mind controlled, like something/some force has given me an ultimatum
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
@Empiresigns,
But that's just the argument. People believe a lot of random stuff exists. And a lot of it doesn't. If there is no evidence, why believe it exists?
Posted by empiresigns 6 years ago
empiresigns
One can not know what can not be shown. Because we not yet have an answer for what it is we do not know does not suppose the supernatural. Therefore, one can believe something exist even with a lack of evidence but one can not know something exists without evidence.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
I agree with your premise Sotiras, but disagree with what you just said. Religious danger is overrated. People who are willing to do dangerous, reckless or hateful stuff won't need religion do it for, they'll find any excuse.
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
@Sotiras-
1) why the ad hominum even in the comment? I maintain that one can passionately make arguments one does not personally agree with.
2) I didn't justify any of the things you said. It was you who tried to use the Bible to justify these things. I said that the Bible doesn't actually say these things are morally OK at all.

@Dimmitri.C -
Ultimately you're right, practically you're not. If x is justified in the Bible, it will be justified by God, from a Christian perspective. If x is not justified in the Bible, it will not be justified by God. Morality may be derived from God, but my argument is that the bible will not contradict God and that therefore one may use the Bible as guide to Christian morality. Thus deriving morality from the Bible is equivalent to deriving it from God. I have a second, more philosophical proof too if you'd like to hear it. Besides, I didn't have much choice in the matter - Sotiras' resolution affirmed that I had to argue it this way.

@Cliff.Stamp's vote -
Pity I lost arguments not on the argument I made, but on the resolution that I was affirming. Never mind.
Posted by Sotiras 6 years ago
Sotiras
The fact that religion requires you to try and justify inhuman and almost objectively immoral acts such as child murder, forced marriage, and slavery. My theist opponent perfectly represented the fact that theists are more than willing to do this, which is one of the main dangers of religion in the modern era.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
lol How many ways can one make a "Does God exist" debate?
Posted by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Sorry fhr the sloppy grammar, I am on my Iphone.
Posted by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
I am sorry Larztheloser, but you're mistaken if you believe that theists are allowed to to disagree about whether or not morality is derived from the Bible or from God. I have already explained that morality is derived from God and that the commandments within the Bible only resemble his nature. If we base a debate on this line of reasoning then we argue for and against a property(morality in this case) being improperly ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property(Biblical texts.), i.e: category error.

Take into account what Dr. William Lane Craig(a world renowned philosopher and theologian)has to say: "On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God's own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God's moral nature is what Plato called the "Good." He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth.

Moreover, God's moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from His moral nature. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression."

Morality is derived from God, whilst God's the nature of God is found within His commandments found within the Biblical texts.

All the best.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
SotiraslarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: The biggest problem with judging this debate is the sheer number of arguments which makes each point of contention limited to a back and forth of a few lines each post. Con in general had much better structure and presentation, but would argue science from non-science sources, that was the deciding factor in the argument vote.