The Instigator
Boris7698
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kwagga_la
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God does not exist as anything but myth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 718 times Debate No: 99206
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Boris7698

Pro

God does not exist as anything but myth. As myth, the God concept servers for literary purposes, as a fictional character in a fable. But metaphysically, in reality, God does not exist.

He does not exist for several reasons, all of which boil down to the fact that God is a contradictory concept, and therefore is an invalid concept.

Please note that by reality I mean everything that exists, the whole universe. This includes material things, and immaterial things such as consciousness, and even thoughts, which are processes of consciousness.

God can not actually exist, because he would have no identity. Everything in reality has specific identity, specific attributes that define the entity. For instance, a person has a specific height, and a movement of a rolling ball has specific characteristic. A concept has specific definition and referents. A thought belongs to a process of a specific man's mind. All in all, everything that exists is of particular _identity_. But identity implies limitation. If God was real, than he would have limitations. But that contradicts the fact that God should have no limitations.

Another way to see the same problem, is to note that God is supposed to be a supernatural being. A natural being would be one that exists in nature. Any being, no matter how powerful, would be a natural phenomenon. But this is not good enough for God -- he wants to be a super-natural being. This means he is outside of the universe, outside of existence. I.e. he does not exist (because there can be nothing outside of existence).

There are other smaller points that prove that God can't be real. For instance, God denies the existence of Free Will, which we, people, have. And there are more widely known arguments: but I will not go into them, because the arguments I presented cut the concept at the root.

Finally, please not that I am asserting that I know that God does not exist. I am not merely holding the agnostic position.
kwagga_la

Con

Thank you for initiating the debate!
Rebuttals:
I disagree with the statement made that a contradictory concept is an invalid concept. A contradictory concept may be proven to be valid or invalid but that does not make the contradictory concept itself invalid. Would you know what truth is if it was not for a lie? Is the truth and a lie not two contradictory concepts? Although the two concepts contradict each other they are perfectly valid concepts that do exist. If they were not able to exist then we would not have been aware of them in the first place. A lie, although contradictory at the core, is a valid reference that refers to a misrepresentation of the truth or something opposite of the truth. So the generalized statement that contradictory concepts are invalid and cannot exist is not true. We experience it in everyday life. Perhaps you teach your children not to swear and you are known to oppose bad language, but in moment of anger, do you perhaps utter a swear word? And if you do, do you not contradict yourself? You"re values? You"re integrity? Did you become an "invalid" human being? Everyday people everywhere contradict their morals, values and ideologies. It is a fact of life that people contradict themselves everyday in many different ways. In science they use falsification as a test. Falsification is the act of imposing contradictions in order to establish validity. The act of falsifying, observing contradictions is a valid concept. "Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false." https://en.wikipedia.org...
Pro lists the following premises to draw the conclusion that if God had an identity He will have limitations:
A concept has specific definition and referents.
All in all, everything that exists is of particular _identity_.
But identity implies limitation.
If God does not have limitations then He has no identity and therefore cannot exist because something can only exist if it has an identity. Showing that the Pro"s premises are not valid will also make his conclusion invalid.
Pro"s premises are very general and do not represent actuality. It is true that a concept as defined i.e. has an identity, poses limitations on the concept itself. For example: Infinity cannot be infinite at the same time. But the limitation in identity does not limit the concept"s attribute of limitlessness. Herein lays the problem with what Pro says. Identity can be limited in how the concept is defined but not necessarily in the attribute attributed to the concept. A second example is the concept of everlasting, without beginning or end. No one knows when time began or when it will end. It has an attribute on which a limitation cannot be placed on. Pro is vague in stating what limitations are placed on God by ascribing an identity to Him that justifies the conclusion that He therefore cannot exist. If Pro was to start defining those parameters will that then not constitute an identity? The examples clearly shows that identity cannot limit the concept"s attributes and that a limited identity can have unlimited attributes. This contradicts what Pro said stating that God is supposed to be without limitations, but cannot be, if an identity is ascribed to Him. Please note here that I addressed the logic in your argument. I do not agree with your definition ascribed to God that He is supposed to have no limitations.
You create a concept of a god you want to argue against that do not represent the god concepts as found in most religions. Since I believe in the Bible, I will use the Bible to show that your argument fails against the God of the Bible. A limitless God, as you suppose, is an impossibility due to the illogical nature of your concept. A limitless God cannot be LIMITED at the same time! But ascribing limitlessness to god you LIMIT him to only being limitless. The basis of your premise is flawed to begin with. The God of the Bible has certain limitations due to his moral state and attributes therefore your argument against a limitless god do not prove that the God of the Bible cannot exist. For example: The God of the Bible cannot lie. That"s a limitation.
Regarding free will, I will only answer according to my beliefs. You say God denies the existence of free will? Most religions say we all end up at the same place because God is known by different names. The God of the Bible is not that narrow minded, He gives you a choice of either ending up in Heaven or Hell! Do you want to say that is not free will?
Clarification:
I would like to answer you regarding what you said about the supernatural but you first need to clarify some things for me please. How did you come to the conclusion that supernatural means "outside of existence"?
That is not the definition as found in the Bible of God. The Bible says God transcends the natural and is therefore not out of existence or outside of the Universe. In fact, God entered this universe as a man, Jesus Christ. Your definition is unorthodox when applied in a religious sense, and after all you are arguing against religion if you say God does not exist. You cannot expect anyone to argue against a concept that is not held by them but which you want to impose on them.
Also observe that the normal definition of the concept "supernatural" do not STATE that it is out of existence or even imply that the invisible cannot exist. It seems to be your own interpretation or definition as you wish it to be. I typed "supernatural definition" into google and here is what the first 3 definitions say:
"of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." http://www.dictionary.com...
"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; "https://www.merriam-webster.com...
"The term "supernatural" is often used interchangeably with paranormal or preternatural " the latter typically limited to an adjective for describing abilities which appear to exceed the bounds of possibility." https://en.wikipedia.org...
When you clarify your definition I will give you examples of the supernatural as found in the Bible.
In my opinion the agnostic position is more reasonable than saying there definitely is NO God. It is stated that we humans know less than 1% of what is "out there". We do not even know everything about the planet we live on. Not knowing almost anything, I would say it is a bit presumptuous, claiming that there definitely is NO God like you do. Face it, you and the collective knowledge gathered so far, cannot really rule out the possibility that God exists. You simply know to little to make a statement like that. In order for you to prove there is definitely NO God you must have been able to have searched the whole universe and have a super knowledge of understanding. It is of no use being restricted to a fixed location and then trying to make absolute statements of things you cannot verify. If you are saying a physical God cannot exist then you should have done a physical verification. But if you can do that then you are obviously a god! And so refute your atheism.
Debate Round No. 1
Boris7698

Pro

My opponent offers the example of a man that professes not to swear, yet in the heat of the moment he swears. The fact that he swears contradicts his previous premise that "swearing is wrong". He then must reject that premise, because following this premise resulted in a contradiction.

Contradictions are concepts of the mind. They are epistemological, not metaphysically. Our mind can entertain opposing premises for the purposes of identifying which one is correct. The concept of contradiction is a tool of logic. My opponent is correct in correcting me that the concept is not invalid -- I was mistaken. But this doesn't change the fact (and my claim) that contradictions do not exist metaphysically. Since God is supposed to be more than a figment of imagination of religionists, he is claimed to exist _metaphysically_. This is impossible from the definition and description of God.

Further, my opponent confuses the concept with the referent of the concept, when he argues that a concept doesn't have to have an identity. First of all, a concept does have an identity, but this is not relevant to my point which is that the metaphysical referent of the God concept -- the actual God, and not the idea of God -- must have identity.

Next, my opponent grants that the Christian God is not limitless in some respects. But is it not true that God is supposed to be all powerful? But this is a minor point.

A major point is that every aspect of an entity must be _specific_. This is an equivalent of saying that an entity is natural. A God that is natural, yet is all powerful, is a God of Spinoza of Pantheism. Spinoza was excommunicated from Jewish religion, because God is supposed to be outside of nature, not inside.

My opponent says that it is not claimed that God must be beyond nature, and then immediately states that God transcends nature. But "beyond" and "transcends" means the same thing: that God has some attributes outside of nature.
kwagga_la

Con

Contradictions are not only concepts of the mind. They can be manifested as concepts and actions. The one may lead to the other and visa versa. They are epistemological AND metaphysically. Pro states that being metaphysical is "impossible from the definition and description of God". Yet Pro offers no definition or description to support his claims. Saying that God is supposed to be limitless and supernatural is hardly a definition and even less of a proper description. People have different perceptions regarding the concepts and it is therefore better to define in as to be applied to the purpose of the debate. For example: Pro may ascribe characteristics to supernatural that contradicts the definition of the orthodox definition of the God he argues against. Perhaps I did not state it very clearly but an identity is a concept and a concept when defined has an identity. The two are interchangeable.

I have heard people say that God is all-loving and all-powerful. By all-loving God loves everyone regardless and understand if you "sin" or even reject him. We all end up in heaven because He is all-loving. All-powerful according to some means He can do anything He wants to do. I also noticed you use the words "supposed to be". According to who? Personally I have a problem with all-loving and all-powerful as defined by some people because it is not very logical. From the Bible I also find this type of application does not apply to the God of the Bible. If God is all-loving in the sense that no one is accountable then He cannot be righteous or just. If He is all-loving then He allows people to get away with anything and therefore do not hold them accountable for what they did wrong. The idea of justice is only logical if there is an afterlife. People steal, kill and rape and when they are cornered can just kill themselves. If there is no God they will not be held accountable in this life or the next. Where is the justice? The natural man cannot have a complete comprehension of justice if you rule out the afterlife. Some men get caught and are held accountable others are not held accountable. Imagine explaining justice on that basis without taking the afterlife into account. Justice demands accountability. Regarding all-powerful: One of God"s attributes is that He is everlasting. He cannot stop being everlasting. So in short, the human definition of all-powerful contradicts what God has to say about himself.

To understand what it means for God to be almighty one has to look at how the Bible defines it. The Bible defines God as almighty because He can bring His will about, and if required, make everyone else to bow to His will. He has the supreme power to enforce and accomplish what He sets out to do within His being. The limitations that apply to God cannot prevent Him from accomplishing what He sets out to do. However, it is important to understand that God"s attributes and being are not contradictory but complementary. In other words, He will not set out to do something in the first place that contradicts His being. For example: God is holy, and as stated, cannot lie. It is part of His being. He cannot lie but that does not restrict Him to create because being able to tell a lie is not required to create. Trying to apply a concept in general to different specific tasks is like trying to use a printer to build a house. Do you need a shovel to print a document? It is logical that you only need certain specific attributes in order to be able to do certain things but to do something else you do not necessarily need the same attributes and they can all exist together at the same time.

Pro says that an entity must be specific and if so then the entity is natural. If natural then God is part of nature and not as, "supposed to be" outside it. Pro further says that I stated that God is not beyond nature but then says God transcends nature. There is a difference between saying that God transcends nature and, like what Pro says, that supernatural is outside of existence. When I say God transcends nature I do not say that He is outside of existence. Another point is that although God may transcend nature He revealed Himself to humankind and therefore is knowable. We know God because He revealed Himself to us through the nation Israel and as the man Jesus Christ and these revelations were recorded in the Bible. So what I am saying is that being able to transcend nature in no way restricts God from entering what we consider nature. Hypothetically, if God was to hide Himself from man we would never be able to find him because He transcends nature. Philosophers waste their time trying to solve this isolated point. The philosophers theorize in vain whether we can know God or not because God ALREADY revealed himself to mankind. Ignorance may be bliss, but in the case of philosophy, it can also be a sign of stupidity.

We define metaphysical as a concept. Is that therefore natural? A concept that refers to something beyond the natural as you claim? If so then the supernatural must also be natural according to your reasoning because we are able to define it. But if Supernatural is natural then "super" natural cannot be comprehended. We CAN define and comprehend supernatural therefore I do not agree with your conclusion that an entity that is defined is necessarily natural. Sometimes yes and sometimes no, it depends on the circumstance and context. You claim the extreme saying beyond is false and I hold a balanced position saying SOMETIMES not. Natural refers to what we observe, experience, taste, see and can verify in our surroundings. Something is supernatural or transcends it when it is not bound to our environment or restricted by our "natural" laws. Can you define and understand the concept of "everlasting"? Is everlasting therefore natural? Can you or anyone else verify it, being restricted by your life span? No one alive can verify the concept in their life time so how can that possibly be "natural"? Yet we experience it as a reality that exists. How is it even possible that something can just exist from everlasting? Is it only an epistemological concept? Then how are you able to experience it? You experience it because you are subjected to time everyday. I have read that you stated that the earth existed from everlasting. Can you even prove how that is possible? Can you by the scientific method recreate everlasting to prove it? Can you verify it? And if you cannot prove it by science, then how can you regard that as natural? But yet you do.

Pro makes it sound that the possibility of transcending nature cannot at the same time mean that God can be in nature. Again, the statement made is too generalized. Pro applies a specific attribute to all aspects of God when it is not applicable. The Bible states God came as the man Jesus Christ and that he experienced our infirmities etc. and in all ways was tested like us. Therefore God can come into the "natural" and even experience it on our level. God loves like we do, God cares like we do, so we even share qualities with God that we define as natural. God transcends nature because of His being and also some of His attributes. God is not bound by time and space like we are. God has the power to create, we do not. God has a knowledge and understanding of things not available to us. So in that respect He clearly transcends nature. Pantheism says everything is God. God taking on the form of a specific man cannot be equated with that. I have briefly summed up what is usually contained in volumes of Theology books. So in short, note that all aspects were not covered and I realize that some of the things might provoke questions. I mention what I think is applicable to the point I am trying to make.

As for the Supernatural: I have mentioned that God has knowledge of things we cannot comprehend with the natural mind because of various natural restrictions, especially time and space. So here I will give you an example of supernatural knowledge. Job 38:16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? Here a "non existent" being (according to you) tells Job that there are springs in the sea. Not only that there are springs but that they are deep. So here is the problem. In Job"s day the technology did not exist to go down into the depths of the sea to discover springs. No natural man in that era, without the technology to assist and protect them, could have gone that deep. Natural man did not have the mental or physical capability AT THAT TIME to know this information without the aid of technology. Someone who makes a statement like that either is lying or has access to SUPERNATURAL knowledge. How will we know if it is a lie? Simply by verifying what was said. To have this supernatural knowledge implies supernatural capabilities. God did not say there "might be" springs but makes a statement of fact. Only in the 1970"s did man develop the technology to go down to the deep for THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY. Guess what they found? They found springs at the bottom of the ocean. This portion was written in the Bible and can be found in manuscripts predating the 1970"s so it is not a human invention or forgery. Not only is that an example of the supernatural but also of the existence of the being who imparted that knowledge. The knowledge imparted was truthful because it was verified and therefore the Being"s existence is credible.
Debate Round No. 2
Boris7698

Pro

Here is a summary of points that my opponent made:

1. To have true justice, God and after life are required to exist
2. That "God can bring His will about, and if required, make everyone else to bow to His will"
3. Transcending nature does not limit God to enter nature (for instance, as Jesus Christ), and from this concludes that "transcending nature" does not mean "to be outside of existence".
4. If we can formulate a concept of something, it is a proof that it must exist metaphysically.
5. We able to conceptualize things that we don't fully understand, such as the concept "everlasting", yet we classify it as metaphysical (that it actually exists).
6. God can do what people can not, such as: to know more, to not feel time and space, and to create (not clear what)
7. The Bible contains information that could not be known to people of the time

If I have misrepresented my opponent's statements, he will correct me in the next round. For now, I will respond to these points.

In point #3, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Point #1 implies that justice is a man-made concept. Point #7 implies (to an atheist) that people have already discovered by themselves under-currents in Biblical times. Point #4: not necessarily -- we can extrapolate by imagination. A flying spaghetti monster is made concepts from reality which we combine in a fantastic way. Point #5: we see "everlasting" indirectly; we also proved the "atomic theory" indirectly -- no one ever saw an atom. Point #6: a natural alien being from another planet could be such a God.

In point #2, observe that the ability to force a will on others is already supernatural, therefore it can't exist. It is impossible to force an irresolute man. A man may refuse, or outright kill himself -- yet, he would not obey if he is sufficiently determined. This is because a man has free will.
kwagga_la

Con

Rebuttals:

In point #3, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Premise: God surpasses nature in that He has supernatural attributes
Premise: Supernatural attributes allows God to enter into nature. It is SUPER after all.
Conclusion: God can transcend and partake of nature

Transcendence does not make entering that which it transcends and impossibility and the ability to transcend something is not a requirement for existence or enough reason to deny existence.

#1 implies that justice is a man-made concept.

There is a philosophical argument that man cannot perceive of something greater than himself because he is bound by nature. Therefore to perceive God, who is supernatural, he must have had help. In the same way justice, when observed in the "natural" realm where people are not always held accountable for their bad deeds, will not be a concept of universal accountability based on our natural observance. If people want to argue that justice was a human invention then said concept contradicts the statement. The idea of justice, that includes a universal accountability for all, extends beyond the natural to be true. By implication it cannot be a human invention.

Point #7 implies (to an atheist) that people have already discovered by themselves under-currents in Biblical times.

No person can go to the deep of the seas without some sort of support, even today. Again, the technology did not exist during the time of Job therefore the discovery of it by a human at that time was impossible. If it was discovered by humans back then what was the point of verifying it in the 1970"s? It should have been common knowledge!

Point #4: not necessarily -- we can extrapolate by imagination. A flying spaghetti monster is made concepts from reality which we combine in a fantastic way.

The difference is between the validity of a concept purely existing because it has an identity and the validity of the claims presented within the concept. I have stated previously that "A contradictory concept may be proven to be valid or invalid but that does not make the contradictory concept itself invalid." The flying spaghetti monster concept exists because you are able to articulate it. But we can prove whether it is valid or invalid. Proving what is valid or invalid about the concept depends on specifics. I have mentioned before that often time the references here are too generalized. For instance: Is the spaghetti monster considered a concept worthy of starting a church? The answer is yes. Can it be validated? Yes it can, check out the internet for the church of the spaghetti monster. Since the spaghetti monster has a church, is it a valid reason to assume his/her/its existence? No it is not valid, the spaghetti monster was not observed by anyone at any time up until now. Secondly, no one has observed spaghetti flying by itself as implied.

Point #5: we see "everlasting" indirectly; we also proved the "atomic theory" indirectly -- no one ever saw an atom. People observe the effects and so indirectly prove the theory.

In the same way God therefore does not need to be seen to be proven. You regard things you cannot see or do not have direct evidence for as natural but yet you claim to be an atheist? The undeniable point is that you need supernatural ability to be able to verify everlasting.

Point #6: a natural alien being from another planet could be such a God.

A natural being from another planet who can fly, has strength beyond mans capabilities, and is immune to our weapons will be a god to us if he or she wishes to demand worship from us. Hypothetically, to say that such a being is natural presents a problem to what you are saying. First, the powers classify this being as supernatural rather than natural because it is outside of our frame of natural reference. Secondly, should you claim that it is natural although the being possesses the powers and therefore has a right to exist then you should also allow the same to be true for the God of the Bible. In short, the possibility that a god can exist refutes your atheism. Atheism says NO God exist. Someone who opposes an atheist does not need to prove that God exists. In the very least they only need to prove the possibility. If there is a possibility then a definite NO cannot be declared.

In point #2, observe that the ability to force a will on others is already supernatural, therefore it can't exist. It is impossible to force an irresolute man. A man may refuse, or outright kill himself -- yet, he would not obey if he is sufficiently determined. This is because a man has free will.

You miss the bigger picture here. For example: Soccer has specific rules that are imposed upon the players. Within these rules there are leeway"s, penalties, prescribed conduct etc. etc. In the end the overall rules are enforced because the game can only have a winner or loser etc. based on the rules that governs the game. The rules are determined by a FIFA alone. There are no other organizations that can impose their laws on the world cup or over rule FIFA"s decisions. In the same way man"s free will and all the things happening are allowed within the plan God set up. God states in the Bible where humanity will end up and that the earth and universe will be replaced by new ones. The free will of man cannot stop this. There is no other being powerful enough to stop God from doing that. In that respect God is almighty to bring about His determined will.
Debate Round No. 3
Boris7698

Pro

We could go round, and round over specific cases, but the issue that underpins all the pro-God arguments is the claim that natural does not include all of the existence. As, for instance, natural could only include the physical universe, or physical universe + some non-physical stuff, but not all the physical stuff.

I however, claimed, that it is impossible to separate physical from the non-physical: nature is integrated into one existence of everything, that I call "the universe". Everything that could possibly happen is natural. Therefore, every object in the universe must satisfy the law of nature in that it must have an identity. It can't be something arbitrary. And because it has an identity, then everything about this object is particular, and finite. Therefore, we may not apply transcendent to any object in the universe. There is no difference in status between the moon, the sun, a star, a man, an electron. None is transcendent, they are all natural.

Therefore, the most you can call God is a being with consciousness and free-will. The least: inanimate matter, like the sun.

But God could not have built existence (the world), unlike the Bible says, because he is part of the existence.

If, as you say, God is the alien being that can trick people to end up doing what he wants by making them walk in some kind of maze, that does not make him all powerful. His power is limited, and someone who is more advanced could see through his exploits. As a result, he would not be able to "force" his will.

Finally, your examples that God exists because there is stuff in the Bible that people couldn't know, does not prove a supernatural being, only at most that an alien being from another planet, who landed on Earth, and gave this info to the people. (However, people could have figured it out themselves, through indirect measurement.)

In conclusion, the best you can do is God = alien being from another planet (or any other part in the universe)
kwagga_la

Con

Rebuttal:

We have a subjective view of what natural is. Someone like God has an objective view of what is natural. You have your definition of certain terms and I have mine. As stated before, the general accepted view is that God is supernatural in that He has abilities that normal human beings do not have. You claim it is impossible to separate the physical from the non-physical but again you speak in broad terms without ascribing specific definitions. Love exists independent of the physical. You cannot see it and are not forced to share in it. When you die it will continue existing. Its existence is not dependent on you. Obviously there are many examples like that that proves something non-physical can exist, can be experienced, can compel and direct behavior but cannot be seen or physically as a single object be confined. Your broad definitions make your conclusions unconvincing when applied to specifics. It is natural because it exist to you but it cannot be explained as something physical because it cannot be confined to time, space and a specific observable locality. It should therefore be clear that physical and non-physical is not the same as nature or natural and unnatural. They differ and is not dependent on each other but can exist in parallel at the same time as distinct entities. In short, something non-physical has a right to existence the same as something physical because it can also have an identity. Who made the rule of nature anyway? And who demonstrated that law by the scientific method? The last time I checked, not even the evolutionists where in full agreement. As a side note: Try to find someone who still seriously believes we came from the apes like Darwin did. Good luck with that.

You say "everything that could happen is natural". That is a supernatural hypothesis. The only way you can possibly hope to establish it as true is if you have supernatural abilities to calculate all probable outcomes. "ALL" includes the unforeseen or the "black swan" as some likes to call it. To do that you need to be able to have a super knowledge, super ability to move between locations etc. As I pointed out before, if you are able to do that you are a god and refute your atheism.

The Bible offers the contrary view to yours in that everything has existence BECAUSE God exists. Secondly, the Bible does not say God created existence. He created a material universe that owes its existence to Him. Therefore the universe and everything else is dependent on God"s existence and not the other way around. Your conclusion is arbitrary. Someone who exist and cause something else to exist will obviously have existence.

With regards to Job. Your rebuttal is nothing more that an excuse with no evidence to back you up by claiming that some alien who landed on earth imparted that knowledge to Job. Can you give a description of the nature and identity of the alien you refer too backed up by proof? This is what you expect from others to prove God exist so likewise you have to do the same. If you cannot identify the identity under the conditions mentioned then how can you even mention this as a "natural" alternative explanation based on your theories? As stated in my rebuttal, if the knowledge was already known then why did it become scientific fact only after observance in the 1970"s? This is typical of atheistic reasoning, I have encountered before, saying that God was an invention because people could not explain the times and seasons or other phenomena. You are faced with something you or science cannot explain and then you do what Christians are accused of doing, claiming some alien landed on earth? Just like the flying spaghetti monster, there is no historical record of it. However, the book of Job has been here long before the 1970"s. It was not changed and serves as a historical record of a claim made that cannot be explained as "natural".

You also claim that people could have figured it out by indirect measurement. Indirect measurement requires information based on observable phenomenon. No human could go that deep without mechanical intervention to gain enough information to make any indirect measurement. "Indirect measurement is a method of using proportions to find an unknown length or distance in similar figures. Two common ways to achieve indirect measurement involve (1) using a mirror on the ground and (2) using shadow lengths and find an object's height." https://www.brightstorm.com...

There is more than "the best" as you say. The evidence for Jesus Christ and the miracles He did is of the historical type and not only is it proof of the supernatural but it also demolishes all you theories. We call it "historical" because it is well attested too from the ancient world. The best rebuttals against the historical Christ falls in the category you tried above by presenting probable excuses that might seem plausible in explaining what was recorded in the Book of Job. The facts are the evidence exists as written documents handed down and no one"s opinion will change that. The documents are cross referenced by numerous sources and cannot be doubted. The fact that there was numerous people who doubted Christ and the fact that "new" Gospels were written proves that the Bible was subjected to what is called the "scientific method". The scientific method calls for observance and comparison followed by peer review. Some of the people who were involved on both sides of the above mentioned were learned men who were contemporaries of Christ and even the eyewitnesses who witnessed Christ. We have records in written form that testifies to their scrutiny and findings (and I am not referring to ONLY the books of the Bible). Furthermore, the supernatural is everywhere to be found in the Bible, you just need to look for it. Job was but one example.

Thank you for the debate and I wish you all the best.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Boris7698 1 year ago
Boris7698
Typo: The ending of the first first paragraph "... but not all the physical stuff" should be "... but not all the NON-physical stuff"
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Why not just not take away "The myth"..
Posted by kwagga_la 1 year ago
kwagga_la
Perhaps I need to clarify something. As humans with a limited number of years on earth, we experience time which is everlasting in part.
Posted by Boris7698 1 year ago
Boris7698
"My opponent is correct in correcting me that the concept is not invalid -- I was mistaken" -- this is not clearly written. To clarify: I was mistaken in asserting that the concept of contradiction is not valid. It is a valid _concept_.
Posted by Boris7698 1 year ago
Boris7698
Right, that is what I said. God exists as a mythical character, not more.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Well. Then myth exist.
Posted by Boris7698 1 year ago
Boris7698
A "myth" is a story that is not real, but it serves some literary purpose, usually to illustrate some principle of morality.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
What is a myth.. ?
Posted by kwagga_la 1 year ago
kwagga_la
Typo *Infinity cannot be finite
Posted by Boris7698 1 year ago
Boris7698
Typo: in the last sentence of the first round, "please not" should be "please note".
No votes have been placed for this debate.