God, Jesus and the Bible are nonsensical.
Debate Rounds (4)
Jesus: Christ's Prophet.
Bible: Christ's Holy book.
Nonsense: Wrong, not true, making no sense.
Pro will argue that a majority of God, Jesus and the Bible are nonsensical. Con will argue that a majority of God, Jesus and the Bible are true.
No restrictions on what to write on any round except round 4, in which there are only rebuttals and no new points are made.
Burden of proof is shared.
Basic opening point: Here we go again. Relying on a book that was written by people thousands of years ago to fuel your knowledge. Nice move.
I look forward to an interesting debate.
Pro's definition of nonsense: Wrong, not true, making no sense.
"God is nonsensical"
Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
The universe has a cause.
From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, he appends a further premise and conclusion based upon ontological analysis of the properties of the cause:
The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes:
"... transcending the entire universe there exists a cause which brought the universe into being ex nihilo ... our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it. For it is no secret that one of the most important conceptions of what theists mean by 'God' is Creator of heaven and earth."
Richard Dawkins chose not to debate Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, a prominent advocate of intelligent design and the author of the acclaimed Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.
Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins, Atheist Bilogist and author of "The God Delusion".
"Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."
"Jesus is nonsensical"
*Jesus had to be born because of man's sin and rebellion.
In the Bible, God gave Adam and Eve (Adam simply meaning "man" in Hebrew)the gift of free choice/free will. He allowed them the ability to decide whether they would obey Him or not and they freely chose not to. God, as a gentleman, in fairness of a debate against himself, allowed Satan, to challenge God's will for mankind. Satan appealed to Eve's vanity, convincing her she could be like God , “knowing good and evil”.
*Jesus had to be born because God chose to reveal His own character to us and He offers a second chance. As the old saying goes,"Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me three times..." Am I inferring God is a fool? Of course not, but use this saying to point out even humans instinctively use the "no third chance" philosophy. There will be no third chance. Mankind is getting its second chance right now according to the Bible.
God wanted to reveal His righteous character to all of mankind so they could become like Him in mind and spirit. His hope was for them to see that His way of being was better while not dictatorially forcing it on them against their own free will. He demonstrated his philosophy, character, and love through the person of Jesus Christ, living as a man, tempted as we are, disappointed as we are, rejected and accepted.
*Why would we ever believe God loved us without Christ?
"I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you." (John 15:15)
"This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us." (1 John 3:16)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
"And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross to show His love for us." (Phillipians 2:8)
Here is a video depicting why Christians believe God loves them from the "Passion of the Christ" movie.
Here is a preview of the motion picture "Risen" which depicts Jesus' death and ressurection from the dead.
Here is a clip showing Jesus' ascension after rising from the dead. In this, Christians derive their hope in eternal life, in that death could not contain Christ.
'We don't know the origin of the universe yet, and therefore God created it.'
Oh please. Time and time again, there is this argument. How hopeless do you have to be that your only 'evidence' that implies an eternal being that exists neither physically nor intangibly is merely an explanation of what we don't know yet? How many scientific advances would have been lost if Isaac Newton just assumed that God dragged the apple down to the ground? Well listen here. Science is an ever growing beast of unarguable, provable knowledge. We will decode the secrets of the universe, just as we have decoded gravity, light, what the moon is made of (not cheese) and everything that we don't know. But in the meantime, what's most detrimental to human curiosity is to just imply 'God did it'.
'If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful'
No it does not. What part of the Kalam argument suggested that? What part of anything in the world suggested that? Only your oh-so-true Bible. If you're going to play God-of-the-gaps, then science is making God an ever-shrinking peck of ignorance that is growing smaller, fainter, more nonsensical everyday. Besides, that would on raise more questions on what is God.
'Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes:'
William Lane Craig? Is he a scientist? No. He is a Christian apologist and philosopher. If you're so desperate that you have to base your arguments with a biased source, then I might as well have Neil deGrasse Tyson or Christopher Hitchens or Ricky Gervais shut you up.
'Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins, Atheist Bilogist and author of "The God Delusion'.'
Out of the countless debates Prof. Dawkins won, you chose the one that he doesn't accept. Desperation is in the air. I was also shocked that he said that, and I checked your link. Dawkins looked like a total wimp in your written 'interview'. Please, if anyone knows about Abiogenesis, it's him, an evolutionary biologist. And so I proceeded to check the source of the interview. And guess what? The link it gave brought me to the Youtube homepage. Dawkins should sue that website. This is the analytical mind, not blindly believing everything you see, everything you hear, something all humans would have. We are not so gullible as you are, poisoned by religion, threatened by the fear of a non-existent hell.
Let me sum it up. 'Jesus had to be born because of God, and man's wrongdoing. Here's the proof, the Bible says so.'
Oh please. THE BIBLE IS FALSE! If Jesus was true because the Bible says so, and the Bible is right because God says so, and God is right because the Bible says so, and Jesus is true because God says so, and from what you gave, the only evidence of Jesus is in the Bible.How delusional do you have to be? Talking snakes and a resurrection? The Bible is a fairy tale, people of the 21st century!
Oh, and cool movies. Nice music, and the special effects were spot on too. I'd like to watch those comedies. Nonetheless, I was expecting a documentary in this debate.
Until then, I have proved God, Jesus and the Bible are false with logic, critical thinking, and evidence. You have said they are true based on blind faith, a fairy tale and who's that guy that clicked 're-spawn' again?
Good luck, I hope you are considering thinking with a critical mind whether the bases of Christ are lying. God loves you alright, but I can also have an imaginary friend that doesn't threaten me to burn in made-up hell.
*It is not my burden of proof to prove God is real, Jesus is divine and true, nor is it my burden of proof to prove the Bible is the inspired word of God. My burden of proof is to prove that the three are not nonsensical.
Here is Jedd's definition of nonsensical. I resite it for purposes of this debate.
Nonsense: "Wrong, not true, making no sense." There are many ways of viewing such a claim, so let's check it out.
The first topic is God, specifically the Christian God. If the Christian God is 100% real, then Jedd's definition of nonsensical cannot be applied to Him because He is real, thus not a nonsensical idea. If Jesus is the Christ, then Jedd's definition of nonsensical cannot be applied to Him. If the Bible is the "inherant word of God", then the Bible is not nonsensical but inspired. It is Jedd's burden of proof to prove that the Christian God does not exist, otherwise God, Jesus, and the Bible are very sensical and not nonsensical.
*God is nonsensical? One possible way of trying to determine this is by seeing what the ten highest IQ'ed people on Earth think.
Of the 10 highest IQ's, 8 are Theists. Therfore, it is nonsensical to say the beliefs of 8 of the 10 highest IQ's on Earth have nonsensical beliefs. Thus, it is more than fair to say the idea of God is not nonsensical but sensical, based on this concept.
Jesus is nonsensical? 6 of the 8 highest IQ theists are Christians.
The Bible is nonsensical? 6 of the 8 highest IQ theists believe in the Bible.
*Based on the Kalam argument, the idea of God is not nonsensical. It is a reasonable philosophical hypothesis that finds its way around the philosophical problem that Atheism must confront, and this is a regress of infinite causality, meaning with Atheism vs. Causality, the Atheist must show that A was caused by B was caused by C was caused by D was caused by E, and infinitely. Logically, this is the same as trying to say everyone had a mother but there is no first mother. There are infinite mothers, but no first, infinite history with no first event. This is a fallacy of philosophical logic.
If we assume then that reality is finite we must believe reality only goes out so far as an "object". Since this is all of reality, we can only assume that no reality exists outside of it. Thus, we must assume that something exists inside of nothing. Imagine a basketball hanging in literally nothing. Where is it? How is it? Did it "jump" into existance? This is a philosophical logical fallacy as well. The Atheist is surrounded by fallacies of philosophical logic, and unlike the creationist, cannot look to "God" for an answer. They can only look at our reality.
*Pro responds by saying what caused God? The answer is,"maybe nothing" because He would be from a different reality than ours, transcending space and time and the laws of physics and cosmology. The even better answer is "it doesn't matter". If I look at a car, I can say a human or humans designed it. This can be assumed logically, even if I know nothing about the human(s). I do not need an explanation for the explanation. I've given you an explanation. Human(s) created the car. It doesn't matter that I don't know their names or where they are from.
In this debate, I have given you an explanation for our creation, so named "God". Where He comes from or does not come from is irrelevant because if He is the creator, that is the explanation of our creation. We do not need an explanation of the explanation in this case because the answer is unknowable, unfindable, and likely unimaginable, being from a seperate reality alltogether.
*Pro has said Atheism is proven. It is? I must have missed it.
Pro may have missed the Cambrian Explosion.
The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared quickly, as indicated by the fossil record.
Pro may have missed Rodhocetus.
Pro may have also missed the 100 million year old wasp and spider trapped in amber who look like...a wasp and spider of today.
*Jedd has threatened me with Christopher Hitchens' videos. I have decided to toss a Christopher Hitchens' video into the ring by my own free will.
*Let's look at the Biblical Genesis creation account.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
He spreads out the heavens in empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. Job 26:7
Nonsensical? Think of the Big Bang, then you decide.
Then what in the Nine Realms do you mean by 'nonsensical' then? If God is real or Jesus is true, then he is the truth, it makes sense to say they are real; if the Bible is not a book of fiction, then its words are true! Seriously, I don't get why you are shifting the responsibility of the debate like this! A last-resort, perhaps?
'One possible way of trying to determine this is by seeing what the ten highest IQ'ed people on Earth think.'
How is IQ in any way relevant? IQ is simply how well someone's problem solving is. Out of any valid points, are you? So desperate that you have to imply that if people with high problem-solving abilities believe in God, then everybody should? Also, those people should be making scientific breakthroughs by now. But the greatest minds of science like Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson are atheists. My hypothesis is that religion is holding them back.
'It is a reasonable philosophical hypothesis that finds its way around the philosophical problem that Atheism must confront...'
Reasonable. Do you know what reasonable means? If you find this reasonable, then I'm sure you'll find Allah, the God the Kalam argument was intended for, is reasonable too, also the flying spaghetti monster creating the universe reasonable.
'Atheist must show that A was caused by B was caused by C was caused by D was caused by E, and infinitely. There are infinite mothers, but no first, infinite history with no first event. This is a fallacy of philosophical logic.'
No, no it certainly isn't. We already know that there are cycles that sustain pretty much everything in our everyday life. Water in the oceans, water vapor, clouds, rain, groundwater runoff, rivers, back to the sea. For your examples about mothers, we certainly have evolution and abiogenesis to explain that. Again, we are still finding out the origin of the universe, but that doesn't mean in any way that there is a God.
'The Atheist is surrounded by fallacies of philosophical logic, and unlike the creationist, cannot look to "God" for an answer. They can only look at our reality.'
I shall repeat the answer because you repeated the question. How many scientific advances would have been lost if Isaac Newton just assumed that God dragged the apple down to the ground? Well listen here. Science is an ever growing beast of unarguable, provable knowledge. We will decode the secrets of the universe, just as we have decoded gravity, light, what the moon is made of (not cheese) and everything that we don't know. But in the meantime, what's most detrimental to human curiosity is to just imply 'God did it'. I would really like to have a permanently correct option 'E. God.' in my science exam for every single question but I'm afraid I'll end up like you.
'Pro responds by saying what caused God?'
I shall assume Con responds by saying talking snakes are real? Don't just assume what the opponent will say.
'Pro has said Atheism is proven.'
I said science is proven. Atheism just so happens to be in the side of science.
'The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared quickly, as indicated by the fossil record.'
Sigh. God-of-the-gaps again. I'm tired of this. If you're going to use God to explain everything we haven't figured out yet, then God is an ever-shrinking peck of ignorance that gets smaller and weaker every day as science decodes the secrets of the universe, just as we have decoded gravity, light, what the moon is made of (not cheese) and everything that we don't know yet.
'Pro may have missed Rodhocetus.'
No, you just didn't bring it up. I don't get what some ancient whale has anything to do with this topic, though.
'Pro may have also missed the 100 million year old wasp and spider trapped in amber who look like...a wasp and spider of today.'
No, you just didn't bring it up. I don't get what some ancient insects has anything to do with this topic, though.
'Jedd has threatened me with Christopher Hitchens' videos. I have decided to toss a Christopher Hitchens' video into the ring by my own free will.'
Stop feeling the whole world is out to get you. I didn't threaten anybody. I can toss many stupid theists' arguments into the ring too, but I'm not that desperate for evidence.
'Let's look at the Biblical Genesis creation account.'
The Bible is right because God says so, and God is right because the Bible says so.
'Think of the Big Bang, then you decide.'
The Big Bang theory has been proven.
Well, there you go, none of your 'evidence' remains. I look forward to whatever Bible quotes, biased videos, and God-of-the-gaps statements you'll bring next.
Fermi Paradox: "The great Silence"
The Fermi Paradox states that by probability alone there should be civilizations everywhere throughout the galaxy and universe, yet we have seen and/or heard nothing.
In regards to my statement,"Think of the Big Bang, then you decide," Jedd has replied,"The Big Bang theory has been proven." So I reiterate the rest of my argument again.
*Let's look at the Biblical Genesis creation account.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
He spreads out the heavens in empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. Job 26:7
The Big Bang(of which Jedd says "has been proven")
The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of PHENOMINA, including the ABUNDANCE OF LIGHT ELEMENTS.(2)<He seperated the light from the darkness>
Georges Lemaitre first noted, in 1927, that an expanding universe might be traced back in time to an ORIGINATNG SINGLE POINT,(1)<Let there be light> and scientists have built on his idea of cosmic EXPANSION.(3)<He spreads out the heavens>(2)<He seperated the light from the darkness>
The Bible boldly declares the future.
-End Times Prophecy:
"I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And 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 and had not received its MARK on their foreheads or their hands." (Revelation 20:4)
Here are links of Christians being beheaded for their faith and not turning to the Muslim god, "Allah". I have provided them to show headlines.
"Muslims behead Christians in New Jersey"
"Muslim beaheads woman in Oklahoma"
Here is (Zechariah 8:7-8)
This is what the Lord Almighty says: "I will save my people from the countries of the east and the west. I will bring them back to live in Jerusalem; they will be my people, and I will be faithful and righteous to them as their God."
Starting in the late 1890's, many Jews from around the world started returning in massive numbers to the land of Israel.
-On May 14, 1948, in Tel Aviv, Jewish Agency Chairman David Ben-Gurion proclaims the State of Israel, establishing the first Jewish state in 2,000 years.
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. (Matthew 24:14)
Here is a CNN article named,
"Christianity goes Global: By Far the World's Largest Religion"
If God, Jesus, and the Bible are nonsensical, the majority of people on Earth are nonsensical for believing in God, and 1 out of 3 people on Earth is nonsensical for believing in Jesus and the Bible.
I quote Jedd once again:
"I said science is proven. Atheism just so happens to be in the side of science."
Really? Well let's check it out. What does science tell us?
Scientist finds the Kraken
Nephilim found in Ohio
Nephilim found in Afghanistan
Nephilim found in Peru
Nephilim found in Wisconsin
-Who were the Nephilim
-The Nephilim and Satan
So scientists claim to have found the Kraken(of Zeus) and the Nephilim(Of Satan and demons). Hmmm...Should we trust these scientists or declare so called "mythology" as nonmythology?
How ridiculous is that. In Jedd's book, he says that talking snakes are real, eating apples are bad and him, as the Flying Spaghetti Monster's prophet, went without food or water for a month. He also says that the Earth is not flat. Woah! Coincidence? Of course not. Everything in Jedd's book is true.
'Muslims beheading Christians for not believing in Allah.'
Unless you are threatening me the same thing if I don't believe in the Christian God, this is irrelevant to the topic.
'Jews returned to Israel. Oh wait, the Bible mentioned something about it, the Bible predicted the future!'
But then the Lord couldn't save them from Hitler. And today, Israel initiated war with Palestine, killing more than 2,000 Palestinians. Where is your Lord?
'Christianity goes Global: By Far the World's Largest Religion.'
I don't deny that.
'The majority of people on Earth are nonsensical for believing in God, and 1 out of 3 people on Earth is nonsensical for believing in Jesus and the Bible.'
Nope, it isn't them who are nonsensical, its their beliefs which are. God, Jesus and the Bible which are solely based on blind faith with no evidence, that's nonsensical.
'Science fully supports the Kraken.'
No it does not. Not until there is enough irrefutable evidence to prove there was a creature like the Kraken. Simply put- if the existence of the Kraken doesn't seem to be nonsensical, then science will support it. If not, vice versa. That's the beauty of science, it is what truth is. Instead, some choose to believe and desperately look for evidence to support some fairy tale written a few thousand years ago.
'Skeletons suggest the Nephilim's existence.'
There is a reason why the Nephilim is not yet accepted into science- because there isn't enough evidence. If there was, you should present it to scientists and win a Nobel prize. Science still keeps an open mind, however, if there is enough irrefutable evidence, i don't see why not accept the Nephilim, but until then, no. Nephilim could also mean a tribe of mutants, which went extinct because of natural selection; or the stories could be a made-up hoax; or fabricated skulls could also be made. Looking at the suspicious evidence, I'll admit there could be a speck of possibility these creatures (not necessarily Nephilim) existed, though the claim is weak.
'scientists claim to have found the Kraken(of Zeus) and the Nephilim(Of Satan and demons). Hmmm...Should we trust these scientists or declare so called "mythology" as nonmythology?'
Wow. So you're saying that scientists are untrustworthy? Please. They do the hard work out there mapping archaeological sites, cracking DNA codes and observing the universe. While your websites are sitting on their butts looking for potential cracks in their work. Scientists have no reason to lie, everything is one step forward into understanding what haven't found out today. The websites you gave rely on commenting the supernatural and perhaps fabricating news to get some extra cash. Who is more trustworthy?
Even so, even if the Nephilim or the Kraken were true, that is just one or two verses in the Bible. You have the whole Bible to prove right. A talking snake, a talking jackass, a talking bush, 900-year-old men, a man whose super-human strength resided in his hair, three men who walked unharmed through fire, a man who lived three days in the belly of a whale, a wandering star which somehow led to a particular building, and a corpse which stood up and walked away after three days in a tomb.
Jesus too. He claimed a true-believer could command a mountain to move and it would move (Matthew 17:20). He can't. Jesus claimed that whatever one asks of him in his name, he will do it (John 14:13). He doesn't. He also said he would return with the Kingdom of Heaven before all of his generation was dead (Mark 9:1). He didn't. That was 2000 years ago.
Kill disobedient sons (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), kill those who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2), kill blasphemers (Leviticus), kill non-virginal brides (Deuteronomy 22:20,21), kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), kill adulterers (Leviticus 20:10) and kill witches (Exodus 22) -- where it clearly implied that they do exist and they should be sought out. This statement, in fact, led to the torture and execution of thousands, maybe millions, by the Christian leaders of the Middle Ages.
God loves you, by the way, God loves everyone.
"Christianity amounts to the claim that we must love and be loved by a God who approves of the scapegoating, torture, and murder of one man -- His son, incidentally -- in compensation for the misbehavior and thought-crimes of all others." -Sam Harris.
There are certain arguments proposed to make evolution happen.
Broad-scale evolution holds that a single-cell organism can eventually develop into a human through natural processes. Unique genetic features called transposons have been introduced as knock-down evidence that this progression actually occurred in humans, but a closer look at new data shows that they strongly argue against evolution.
Transposons include several classes of DNA that appear to have been copied, spliced, and reinserted into the genome. Sometimes referred to as jumping genes, these are found in all plants and animals. While some transposons are inactive, many are functional. They have an affinity for transposition into certain areas of the genome.
In a short time, corresponding to fewer than a dozen or so generations, transposons can add more DNA to a population, inflating the total volume of DNA without adding new genes. Some species appear to have large volumes of DNA that were assembled this way. About 44 percent of human DNA consists of repetitive elements, much of which came from transposons.
These vast sequences are repeated blocks of identical DNA. Many evolutionists used to believe them to be random sequences and useful for evolutionary processes to mess with and change into new genetic features. However, they are now known to be very useful. Therefore, if evolution were to mutate them randomly, rather than leading to genetic improvements, it would actually most likely kill the host.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by rextr05 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro consistently uses his opinion for his argument, which is useless if supporting documentation validates his position. Pro uses antagonistic method of stating his position. "majority of God, Jesus and the Bible are nonsensical." Also, using "Basic opening point: Here we go again. Relying on a book that was written by people thousands of years ago to fuel your knowledge. Nice move." Again, demeaning. That's not debating, that's an attempt at intimidating. Pro calls his opponent a 'liar' not a debating tactic without proof. Pro emphatically claims, "THE BIBLE IS FALSE." Thing is, there's no back up to substantiate this except for his opinion ..... once again. Altho support the big bang theory, pro states, "The Big Bang theory has been proven." If it is a theory, it has not been proven. Once again, opinion. Are you starting to see the pattern here? Actually even if con hadn't done a decent job of debating, by default, pro would have lost.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.