The Instigator
Bible2000
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
ignoramusslapper
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God most likely exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 3 votes the winner is...
Bible2000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,411 times Debate No: 62259
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (3)

 

Bible2000

Pro

Let's start with some visualization. You are walking through the woods and see a beautiful log cabin. Do you assume: "How wonderful! The trees must have fallen in just the right place."? Of course not! How much more unlikely is it to say that the infinitely complex, orderly, and vast universe happened randomly by chance, without a creator?

This is against scientific laws like the second law of thermodynamics which states entropy tends to increase. Entropy is disorder. Based on this law, how can life come from non-life, complex life from simple, and something from nothing in the first place? The origin of the universe must have been powerful, and intelligent perhaps, to cause order to exist so the process of evolution, which is not the same as the theory of evolution, could begin.

But let's say the second law of thermodynamics was broken, and a sudden decrease of entropy caused the Big Bang. Is the theory of evolution scientific? Let's see what science REALLY suggests.

A scientist I conversed with claimed Simple organic molecules are the building blocks of life and must have been involved in its origin. So first these organic molecules were formed, replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection, and through this process eventually simple cells were made.

First of all, the scientist did not explain how exactly molecules just randomly decided to replicate. Could it be natural selection? To accept that as a possibility you would have to give natural selection a power that it does not have, the power to add new information to the genome, as is required in molecules-to-man evolution. But natural can"t do that. Natural selection works with already existing information.

The scientist also claimed that in an experiment simulating the old earth"s environment RNA was made, and DNA evolved from RNA. So what about mutations? Could favorable mutations be the explanation of replicating molecules and the first cells? I found the following information, from The New Answers Book Volume 2, to be very interesting, so I will quote what it says.

(BEGINNING OF QUOTE) The DNA strand contains instructions on how to make proteins. Every three "letters" code for a specific amino acid, such as TGC, ATC, GAT, TAG, and CTC. Many amino acids together compose a protein. For simplicity"s sake, to illustrate concepts with the DNA strand, I will use examples in English. Here is a segment illustrating DNA in three-letter words:

The car was red. The red car had one key. The key has one eye and one tip.

Point mutations are mutations where one letter changes on the DNA sequence. A point mutation in our example could cause "car" in the second sentence to be read "cat". We did gain one word (cat), but we lost one word (car) and lost the meaning of one phrase. So the overall result was a loss of information. But many times, point mutations won"t produce another word. Take for instance another point mutation, which changes "car" not to "cat" but to"caa". We did not gain any new words, and we lost one word and lost the meaning of one phrase. So again, the overall result of this point mutation was a loss of information, but even more so this time.

Point mutations can be very devastating. There is a children"s disease called Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS), or simply progeria. It was recently linked to a single point mutation. It is a mutation that causes children"s skin to age, their head to go bald at a very early age (prekindergarten), their bones to develop problems usually associated with the elderly, and their body size to remain very short (about one-half to two-thirds of normal height). Their body parts, including organs, age rapidly, which usually causes death at the average age of 13 years. (Source: B. Hodge, "One Tiny Flaw and 50 Years Lost," Creation 27(1) (2004): 33.)

Not all point mutations are as devastating, yet they still result in a loss of information. According to biophysicist Lee Spetner, "All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it." (Source: L. Spetner, Not by Chance (New York: Judaica Press, 1997), p. 138.)

An inversion mutation is a segment of DNA in a particular strand that reverses itself. An inversion mutation would be like taking the second sentence of our example and spelling it backwards: The car was red. Yek eno dah rac der eht. The key has one eye and one tip. With inversion mutations, we can lose quite a bit of information. We lost several words from, and the meaning of, the second sentence. These mutations can cause serious problems to the organism. The bleeding disorder hemophilia A is caused by an inversion in the Factor VIII (F8) gene.

An insertion mutation is a segment of DNA, whether a single base pair or an extensive length, that is inserted into the DNA strand. For this example, let"s copy a word from the second sentence and insert it into the third sentence: The car was red. The red car had one key. Had the key has one eye and one tip.
This insertion really didn"t help anything. In fact, the insertion is detrimental to the third sentence in that it makes the third sentence meaningless. So this copied word in the third sentence destroyed the combined meanings of the eight words in the third sentence. Insertions generally result in a protein that loses function.

A deletion mutation is a segment of DNA, whether a single base pair or an extensive length, that is deleted from the strand. This will be an obvious loss. In this instance, the second sentence will be deleted: The car was red. The key has one eye and one tip. The entire second sentence has been lost. Thus, we have lost its meaning as well as the words that were in the sentence. Some disorders from deletion mutations are facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) and spinal muscular atrophy.

There are two basic types of frame shift mutations: frame shift due to an insertion and frame shift due to a deletion. These mutations can be caused by an insertion or deletion of one or more letters not divisible by three, which causes an offset in the reading of the "letters" of the DNA. If a mutation occurs where one or more letters are inserted, then the entire sentence can be off. If a t were inserted at the beginning of the second sentence, it would read like this: The car was red. Tth ere dca rha don eke yth eke yha son eey ean don eti p.

Four new words were produced (two of them twice): ere, don, eke andson. These 4 words were not part of the original phrase. However, we lost 14 words. Not only did we lose these words, but we also lost the meaning behind the words. We lost 14 words while gaining only 4 new ones. The overall effect was a loss of information.

A frame shift mutation can also occur by the deletion of one or more"letters." If the first t in the second sentence is deleted, the letters shift to the left, and we get: The car was red. Her edc arh ado nek eyt hek eyh aso nee yea ndo net ip.

Five new words were produced: her, ado, nee, yea, and net. However, once again, we lost 14 words. So again, the overall effect was a loss of information, and the DNA strand became smaller due to this mutation. Frame shift mutations are usually detrimental to the organism by causing the resulting protein to be nonfunctional.

For molecules-to-man evolution to happen, there needs to be a gain in new information within the organism"s genetic material. For instance, for a single-celled organism, such as an amoeba, to evolve into something like a cow, new information (not random base pairs, but complex and ordered DNA) would need to develop over time that would code for ears, lungs, brain, legs, etc. If an amoeba were to make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information. (Currently, an amoeba has limited genetic information, such as the information for protoplasm.) This increase of new information would need to continue in order for a heart, kidneys, etc., to develop. If a DNA strand gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn"t code for anything (it doesn"t contain information for working lungs, heart, etc.), then the amount of DNA added is useless and would be more of a hindrance than a help.

There have been a few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don"t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite, organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain? (END OF QUOTE)

What God"s word the Bible says is what science really suggests. The origin of life is not nonlife, and the complex variety of life now does not have a common ancestor but, instead, humans have always been humans and the complex variety of animal life now adapted from the "kinds" of animals God created.

In response, the scientist says God is just an assumption that we can not see!

Saying life came from nonlife and that the complex variety now had a common ancestor, those are nonsensical ideas based on the ASSUMPTION that there is no God. Assumptions after assumptions that require a much larger leap of faith; a leap I will not make just because those ideas may be a possibility.

I have explained what science REALLY shows concerning the subject of God. If you do not agree with anything I have said, I will respect that and gladly answer any questions you have. In the next round, we can talk about the Bible.

Remember, we are debating if there most likely is a God or not. Whoever gives the most evidence supporting their side should get the majority of votes.
ignoramusslapper

Con

Ok first of all, thermodynamics is a branch of physics concerned with heat and temperature, it has nothing to do with whether our universe should be orderly or not. Second of all, billions of years ago, life was synthesized in tidal pools by chance, although it was unlikely, there is a lot evidence backing it up. On the other hand, what is the evidence that God exists? Where did he come from? How did he come to be? Well, we'll get to this later.

When you said "First of all, the scientist did not explain how exactly molecules just randomly decided to replicate", that doesn't make every scientist wrong, it either means that the particular scientist you were talking to didn't explain it, or he was incompetent. So that argument, is therefor invalid. Also, molecules don't "randomly decide to replicate", that's not how it works. DNA molecules replicate because the double helix is unwound and each strand acts as a template for the next strand. Bases are matched to synthesize the new partner strands. DNA replication is the process of producing two identical replicas from one original DNA molecule. They do not simply "randomly decide to replicate".

Although you are indeed correct that natural selection works with what it already has, what it already has includes genetic mutations. So, with the genetic mutations provided, they evolved into single celled organisms, and with the genetic mutations with those organisms they evolved into fish, and so on and so forth. I saw your argument that said that if those creatures evolved, then how do we still have the creatures that they supposedly evolved from? Well, natural selection doesn't have to pick just one type of an organism. Why, if natural selection picked something with a favorable mutation, can't it also pick the original. Just because a mutation is fit for the world, doesn't mean that the original isn't. That is why we have different creatures.

On your argument about HGPS, you are correct, a lot of mutations, most mutations actually, are not, in fact favorable. So when those mutations happened to the original organisms on Earth, they died out, taking the bad mutations with them. This, though, does not mean that some mutations can be good. For instance, there is the CCR5 mutation, which makes humans virtually immune to HIV. But does this mean that humans without this gene will die out? No.

So, while a genetic mutation does result in the loss of information, there are so many others without the mutation that it is improbable beyond improbability that all of the people with the typical DNA patterns would die out.

"For molecules-to-man evolution to happen, there needs to be a gain in new information within the organism"s genetic material. For instance, for a single-celled organism, such as an amoeba, to evolve into something like a cow, new information (not random base pairs, but complex and ordered DNA) would need to develop over time that would code for ears, lungs, brain, legs, etc.", that was one of your arguments. My rebuttal to this is that obviously, this didn't happen in a few days, a few years, or even a few hundred years. It took billions of years for amoeba and other single celled organisms to evolve into creatures as advanced as cows. At first, one may have developed the mutation for a basic ear, and then generations after, another could have developed mutations for the prototypes of other modern body parts, and then it eventually (after billions of years), developed into beings with ears, legs, lungs, etcetera.

So, as I have spent almost half my characters countering your points, I will use the rest to bring up my own points.

The chances of an all knowing, all powerful being existing, controlling all of us, is ridiculous. There is little to no evidence suggesting that god exists, and yet you criticize the few holes (which I, in return proved weren't actually holes) that evolution has.

Well, your Bible contains a story in which an elderly man constructs an ark and then rounds up two of each animal to survive on the boat. This is obviously not true because that would mean that all animals are after that, besides the original two, would be inbred and would most likely have genetic mutations and die out. This didn't happen, as we still have animals. Even humans would probably be dead or extremely rare and most of the time misconfigured, as there were only approximately 8 people on the ark, most of them related.

Yet another story in the Bible says that a woman was impregnated without coming close to sperm. Now this story is either made up, or Mary actually wasn't a virgin.

I feel, as a believer in evolution and the big bang theory, that it is not my duty to prove to creationists that evolution and the big bang theory is real, as they already have undeniable evidence to back them up, but your duty to give me solid evidence that god exists. You base your belief in god on a supposed lack of evidence in the evolutionary theory, when in reality, there is no lack of evidence, plus new evidence is found all the time. Where is your so-called god's evidence? There is none, that is my point. The best that most creationists have is personal accounts of people claiming that they saw god in a near death experience. Well their word is as good as a man who claims that he's the third coming of Jesus.

So in conclusion for this round of our debate, I would like to say that although the evolutionary theory may have some mysteries that haven't been solved yet, it is almost bullet proof. Evolution is to the point where it has enough evidence to where it is almost fact. Creationism and the idea of god have little or no evidence.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Bible2000

Pro

Con says thermodynamics has nothing to do with the order in the universe. However, the second law of thermodynamics clearly states entropy tends to increase. Entropy, according to the Oxford dictionary, is: "A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system"s thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system."

(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)

Yes, thermodynamics has to do with heat. But order is basically conversion of heat energy into mechanical work. And plenty of this heat energy would have to be available for a Big Bang to happen. I am not denying the Big Bang. I understand there is plenty of evidence supporting this theory, and the Bible actually talks about the expansion of the universe. However, everything with a beginning must have something causing it to begin. So, the Bang must have had a Banger, an origin with no beginning. Once we understand this, it is easy to identify who the creator of all things is.

Con understands natural selection works with what it already has, that is good. However, he still wants to believe that, through favorable mutations, single-celled organisms evolved into fish, and so on and so forth. Come on, Con, you can't just ignore the observable evidence against this silly theory. That's what science is based on, observations! And what do we see? "There have been a few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations [...] there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don't observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite, organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain?" (The New Answers Book Volume 2). You said it yourself: "On your argument about HGPS, you are correct, a lot of mutations, most mutations actually, are not, in fact favorable".

Con also said: "I saw your argument that said that if those creatures evolved, then how do we still have the creatures that they supposedly evolved from?". Con must be seeing things, because that was never one of my arguments, so I wont bother rebutting this; it's not support for the evolution theory.

The chances of God existing are not as ridiculous as you claim. And saying amoeba had billions of years to evolve into the complex life today does not cover the holes of that theory. We have seen what science suggests. Now let's see the evidence. The following quotations are from the book, What Does the Bible REALLY Teach? Chapter 2 The Bible"A Book From God:

(BEGINNING OF QUOTE) The Bible was written over a 1,600-year period. Its writers lived at different times and came from many walks of life. Some were farmers, fishermen, and shepherds. Others were prophets, judges, and kings. The Gospel writer Luke was a doctor. Despite the varied backgrounds of its writers, the Bible is harmonious from beginning to end.

The first book of the Bible tells us how mankind"s problems began. The last book shows that the whole earth will become a paradise, or garden. All the material in the Bible covers thousands of years of history and relates in some way to the unfolding of God"s purpose. The harmony of the Bible is impressive, but that is what we would expect of a book from God.

The Bible is scientifically accurate. It even contains information that was far ahead of its time. For example, the book of Leviticus contained laws for ancient Israel on quarantine and hygiene when surrounding nations knew nothing about such matters. At a time when there were wrong ideas about the shape of the earth, the Bible referred to it as a circle, or sphere. (Isaiah 40:22) The Bible accurately said that the earth "hangs on nothing." (Job 26:7) Of course, the Bible is not a science textbook. But when it touches on scientific matters, it is accurate. Is this not what we would expect of a book from God?

The Bible is also historically accurate and reliable. Its accounts are specific. They include not only the names but also the ancestry of individuals. * In contrast to secular historians, who often do not mention the defeats of their own people, Bible writers were honest, even recording their own failings and those of their nation. In the Bible book of Numbers, for instance, the writer Moses admits his own serious error for which he was severely reproved. (Numbers 20:2-12) Such honesty is rare in other historical accounts but is found in the Bible because it is a book from God.

The Bible contains numerous prophecies, many of which have already been fulfilled. Consider an example. Through the prophet Isaiah, who lived in the eighth century B.C.E., Jehovah foretold that the city of Babylon would be destroyed. (Isaiah 13:19; 14:22, 23) Details were given to show just how the city would be conquered. Invading armies would dry up Babylon"s river and march into the city without a battle. That is not all. Isaiah"s prophecy even named the king who would conquer Babylon"Cyrus."Isaiah 44:27"45:2.

Some 200 years later"on the night of October 5/6, 539 B.C.E."an army encamped near Babylon. Who was its commander? A Persian king named Cyrus. The stage was thus set for the fulfillment of an amazing prophecy. But would the army of Cyrus invade Babylon without a battle, as foretold?

The Babylonians were holding a festival that night and felt secure behind their massive city walls. Meanwhile, Cyrus cleverly diverted the water of the river that flowed through the city. Soon the water was shallow enough for his men to cross the riverbed and approach the walls of the city. But how would Cyrus" army get past Babylon"s walls? For some reason, on that night the doors to the city were carelessly left open!

Regarding Babylon, it was foretold: "She will never be inhabited, nor will she reside for generation after generation. And there the Arab will not pitch his tent, and no shepherds will let their flocks lie down there." (Isaiah 13:20) This prophecy did more than predict a city"s fall. It showed that Babylon would be desolated permanently. You can see evidence of the fulfillment of these words. The uninhabited site of ancient Babylon"about 50 miles [80 km] south of Baghdad, Iraq"is proof that what Jehovah spoke through Isaiah has been fulfilled: "I will sweep her with the broom of annihilation.""Isaiah 14:22, 23.

Considering how the Bible is a book of reliable prophecy is faith strengthening, is it not? After all, if Jehovah God has fulfilled his past promises, we have every reason to be confident that he will also fulfill his promise of a paradise earth. (Numbers 23:19) Indeed, we have "hope of the everlasting life which God, who cannot lie, promised before times long lasting.""Titus 1:2.

Because the Bible is inspired of God, it is "beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight." (2 Timothy 3:16) Yes, the Bible is a practical book. It reflects a keen understanding of human nature. No wonder, for its Author, Jehovah God, is the Creator! He understands our thinking and emotions better than we do. Furthermore, Jehovah knows what we need in order to be happy. He also knows what pathways we should avoid.

Consider Jesus" speech called the Sermon on the Mount, recorded in Matthew chapters 5 to 7. In this masterpiece of teaching, Jesus spoke on a number of topics, including the way to find true happiness, how to settle disputes, how to pray, and how to have the proper view of material things. Jesus" words are just as powerful and practical today as they were when he spoke them.

Some Bible principles deal with family life, work habits, and relationships with others. The Bible"s principles apply to all people, and its counsel is always beneficial. The wisdom found in the Bible is summarized by God"s words through the prophet Isaiah: "I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself.""Isaiah 48:17. (END OF QUOTE)

What more evidence do you need? God's power is right there in the Bible! I cannot ignore the many fulfilled prophecies and science discovered at a later date, and neither should you or ANYONE who cares about the TRUTH.

Concerning your question about the inbreeding, according to you, we have a common ancestor. So, really, we inbreed. We are just far from being related to the person we marry that misconfiguration is unlikely. Well, the animals in Noah's ark were closer to perfection, a lot healthier than the animals now, and less likely to have genetic mutations from inbreeding. Same with the humans. As time passed, they gradually became more imperfect, but the population was also increasing, so inbreeding among close relatives was not necessary.

If God exists, he could have sent Jesus to the womb of Mary, no sperm necessary. SO, that's an invalid argument as well.

I'll make this clear right now, I am not a creationist, if you are referring to those who want to believe in a young Earth. I am a Jehovah's Witness. I accept evolution (not the theory), and Big Bang. But there is no undeniable evidence to back up the silly theory of evolution. And, if there is any, it is your duty to share it right now, you could win a noble prize! ;)

I eagerly await Con's response. Thank you.
ignoramusslapper

Con

You say that the big bang must have had a "banger". Well you're right. There are a few theories about this. Scientists have discovered that there may be universes inside of other black holes, so our own universe may be inside a black hole, which may be where the materials that caused the big bang came from (http://news.nationalgeographic.com...). But what about god? Where did god come from? He had to come from somewhere? So where?

You describe evolution as "a silly theory", when in reality, you believe that an all knowing and all powerful being created the universe in seven days, if that isn't silly I don't know what is. And in rebuttal to your silly "That's what science is based on, observations! And what do we see?", we have indeed observed genes evolving from mutated genes(http://www.scientificamerican.com...). On your argument about organisms losing information from their DNA, mutations aren't always losses in code, they can also be extras in code, and as modern science, people with Ph.D's, has concluded, this has caused evolution.

On your fourth paragraph, I don't know how you could possibly convey that as something else, but I was simply stating what you were saying so that I could disprove it with actual theories that are supported by evidence. I guess that shows the mental capabilities of someone who believes a giant man in the sky created the wold.

Ok, so the bible was, according to pro, written by judges (who, back then, were mostly religiously biased) , farmers, fishermen, kings (who back in that day and age were mostly tyrants who treated their subjects like garbage), and prophets (who likely weren't prophets, as evidence clearly suggests that god does not exist). These are all men who were less that qualified to write a book on the creation of the universe.

On the Earth becoming a garden paradise, I don't know what Earth you're living on. The ice caps are melting (the result of climate change), more than 1 billion people around the world living on less than a dollar a day, wars going on around the world, many caused by religion, may I add, killing innocent people. First of all, I don't know what kind of god would let things like that go on in the world, second of all, it is naive to think that a god will come and save us one day from all the things we have destroyed, including the earth.

I don't know what world you're coming from where the Bible is scientifically accurate. I do appreciate that you have come up with a few examples in which the Bible was scientifically accurate, one of which was innaccurate: "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH (Isaiah 11:12)", on top of that, I'm sure I can come up with some examples in which it wasn't so scientifically accurate. It is scientifically impossible for a woman to be impregnated without sperm to fertilize her egg, it is also impossible for two of every animal to be stuffed on a wooden boat for forty days, where there was probably a lack of food, and if the water surrounding them was salt water, then also a lack of water, and survive. Oh, and did I mention that there was a talking snake? Trying to claim that the Bible was scientifically accurate is like trying to claim that being gay is a choice, christians say it is, but it's not.

And on the Bible being historically accurate, just because you give names and locations, it doesn't make it true. Does pro know what else has specific locations and ancestry? A Song of Ice and Fire, Harry Potter, and The Hunger Games. They are all just books. Fictional books. So I assume, according to pro, stating faults in your own country makes you correct. So here: I recognize that America's government is corrupt and dishonest a lot of the time. Does that make me correct? It is extremely unprofessional to try to claim that the Bible is an honest book by telling me that it is "the book from god" in a debate about whether god exists or not.

Isaiah did not, in fact, say that the city of Babylon would be destroyed, it stated that god would take it over. I don't think saying you'll do something and then doing it counts as a prophecy. In fact, I was lying in bed the other day, and I said: "I'm going to get up and get some water", and guess what? I got up and went to get some water. I don't think that counts as a prophecy. About the Bible predicting Cyrus the Great overthrowing Babylonia, it is uncertain when it was written, but definitely wasn't written 200 years before Cyrus. In fact, was most likely written during Cyrus's rule, or when he was about to win the war to overthrow Babylonia.

Again, about Earth becoming a paradise, it is beyond naive to just rely on god to come through for everyone and make everything all happy and care free. That's not how the world works, we clean up our own messes, we find a new planet, or we die out. Relying on a fictional book to save us from our own corruption is the mentality that got us here in the first place.

Regarding the statement of yours that claims that "He (Jehovah) knows what pathways we should avoid" and the part about the Bible's principles, the Bible claimed that being gay is a sin. Since then, it has caused countless suicides, depression, and estrangement of children from their families, and it has been scientifically proven that being gay is not a choice and therefor, just as normal as being straight. I don't think that necessarily shows that the Bible should tell people how to live their lives.

Saying "What more evidence do you need? God's power is right there in the Bible! I cannot ignore the many fulfilled prophecies and science discovered at a later date, and neither should you or ANYONE who cares about the TRUTH." is ridiculous. There are no prophecies that had been legitimately fulfilled in the Bible, there have been no scientific discoveries made by the Bible, and there is little to no "truth" in the Bible. If you want truth, go read a textbook that wasn't written in 1910.

Concerning your argument on inbreeding, it is true that we all have a common ancestor, but that doesn't lead to genetic mutations unless the two people who are breeding are closely related. This is proven by SCIENCE.

Regarding your argument that states "If God exists, he could have sent Jesus to the womb of Mary, no sperm necessary. SO, that's an invalid argument as well", you can't use "god did it" as a legitimate argument. You can't sat that god caused something in a debate about whether god exists or not. It's the second time you've done this, and quite frankly, it's ridiculous.

Again, evolution is not a "silly theory", it has concrete evidence to back it up, while the Bible does not. Besides, you used a winky face in a formal debate, spelled "Nobel" wrong, and didn't even capitalize it.

I will patiently await Pro's response, and hope it comes soon. Thank You.
Debate Round No. 2
Bible2000

Pro

Really, Con? You are going to criticize my response because I misspelled one word when you have many more spelling errors? "Babylonia" and "you can't sat that" just to mention two. And, in a debate in person I am sure there is nothing wrong with facial expressions, so I don't think the audience minds if I decide to use a winky face. ;)

Con says there are theories about what the "banger" of the Big Bang must have been. When I talked about the "banger" I was referring to what ever caused the Big Bang that created the universe and all the Big Bangs before. Universes inside of black holes only complicates things more, and I can keep asking, "but what created that universe?".

The question, "Where did God come from?" does not make sense. Everything with a beginning must have something causing it to begin. However, the origin of all things obviously can not have a beginning because then it wouldn't be the origin of what ever caused it to begin. God is this origin. He is not limited by the characteristics of our material universe because, if he exists, he is spiritual. This means he is not limited by physical time or space. He created these things. He did not have a beginning, therefor, nothing caused God to exist. He has always been there.

I describe evolution as a "silly theory" because it is, and you have not demonstrated otherwise. And no, I do not believe the universe was created in seven 24-hour days. The Hebrew word we translate to "day" simply refers to a period of time. For example, in one Bible verse that same Hebrew word is used to describe part of a day when there is light, and in another verse it is used to describe all seven days of creation. There is even a verse where the Hebrew word "day" is 1,000 years for God! There is no reason to think the Bible creation days were 24-hour days. As I previously said, I am a Jehovah's Witness, not a creationist.

Con insists on his third paragraph that I said: "if those creatures evolved, then how do we still have the creatures that they supposedly evolved from?". Dear readers, is this true? Have I said this? If so, when? Give your answers in the comments.

On his fourth paragraph, Con claims the Bible writers were not qualified. However, he is criticizing what he doesn't know. This is not something I don't need to address. Who would know better who is qualified to write his book than the author and creator himself?

To Con, the idea of Earthly paradise is ridiculous. This is understandable because of the current circumstances. "The ice caps are melting (the result of climate change), more than 1 billion people around the world living on less than a dollar a day, wars going on around the world, many caused by religion, may I add, killing innocent people."

What does the Bible teach about this?

God does not cause the bad conditions in the world. (Job 34:10).

By calling God a liar and saying that He withholds good from His subjects, Satan questioned Jehovah"s right to rule. He raised a universal question that had God destroyed Adam, Eve, and Satan immediately, would not be answered and we wouldn't even exist. (Genesis 3:2-5).

Jehovah will use his Son, the Ruler of the Messianic Kingdom, to end all human suffering and to undo its effects. (1 John 3:8).

To understand this better, you can read chapter 11 of the book, What Does the Bible REALLY Teach: http://www.jw.org...

And this is a very interesting and brief three minute video that talks a little bit about that: http://www.jw.org...

"The four corners of the earth" is quite a controversial phrase in the Bible. Many don't know that the Hebrew word translated "corners" in Isaiah is "kanaph". Kanaph is translated in a variety of ways. However, it generally means extremity. The following quote is from http://www.christiananswers.net....

(BEGINNING OF QUOTE) There are many ways in which God could have said corner. Any of the following Hebrew words could have been used:

Pinoh is used in reference to the cornerstone.

Paioh means "a geometric corner"

Ziovyoh means "right angle" or "corner"

Krnouth refers to a projecting corner.

Paamouth - If the Lord wanted to convey the idea of a square, four-cornered earth, the Hebrew word paamouth could have been used. Paamouth means square.

Instead, the Holy Spirit selected the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity. (END OF QUOTE)

Con then continues to prove the Bible is scientifically inaccurate by talking about Mary's impregnation again. We already went over this. If God exists, he could make Mary have a baby without sperm. And understand that "god did it" is a perfectly legitimate answer in this debate. You can say something in the Bible is impossible, but if God exists, it is not impossible. You can say my argument is invalid, but so is yours, because you can not prove God does not exist.

Two of every "kind" entering the ark isn't unrealistic considering there wasn't as much variety of animals in the past as there are now, and most "kinds" of animals consisted of insects and small mammals. You can read more about the ark and its ample carrying capacity here: http://wol.jw.org...

Con also tries to prove the Bible scientifically inaccurate by mentioning the talking snake. This is not a scientific mistake. The snake wasn't the one talking. It was Satan who talked to Eve through the snake. You can't disprove God? You can't disprove Satan either.

And finally, I understand that many times one is born with homosexuality. Being born gay is not a sin. However, they have the same hope of everlasting life as straight people, and both have the same commandments to keep. Gays don't have special privileges. If their sexual desires are more important to them than their love for God how can they expect to benefit from God's kingdom? God is not asking anything impossible, and the reward is worth it. Imperfection is only temporary, because that is what it is. Man was created to be with woman. Imperfections began after Adam and Eve sinned. One wants to remain gay and doesn't care about God? He has free will, and God wont torture him eternally like many false Christians say. That's just simply not something a loving God would do. However, many would prefer eternal perfect happy lives with their loved ones both alive and who have died but will live again on Earth paradise. Again, being gay is not something that can't be controlled now, and it is not something that will be permanent. Imperfections are not permanent. And, so we're clear, perfection has to do with God's purpose for his creation. This perfection is relative to God's perfection, which is absolute.

Isaiah did, in fact, say Babylon would be destroyed. The Bible also talked about its eternal desolation. And guess what? Babylon is still ruins! Your analogy about you saying you will get some water really isn't relevant. You don't believe in God, so his prophecies should not fulfill, right?

It is not uncertain when the Bible prophecies were written. Both carbon dating along with internal evidences in the text suggest the prophecies were, in fact, written before they fulfilled. The following quote is from the book Reasoning from the Scriptures under "Bible": http://wol.jw.org...

(BEGINNING QUOTE)
Prophecy: Isaiah 44:24, 27, 28; 45:1-4: "Jehovah . . . the One saying to the watery deep, "Be evaporated; and all your rivers I shall dry up"; the One saying of Cyrus, "He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out"; even in my saying of Jerusalem, "She will be rebuilt," and of the temple, "You will have your foundation laid." This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations, so that I may ungird even the hips of kings; to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut: "Before you I myself shall go, and the swells of land I shall straighten out. The copper doors I shall break in pieces, and the iron bars I shall cut down. . . . For the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, I even proceeded to call you by your name."" (Writing by Isaiah was completed by about 732 B.C.E.)

Fulfillment: Cyrus had not been born when the prophecy was written. The Jews were not taken into exile to Babylon until 617-607 B.C.E., and Jerusalem and its temple were not destroyed until 607 B.C.E. In detail the prophecy was fulfilled starting in 539 B.C.E. Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates River into an artificial lake, the river gates of Babylon were carelessly left open during feasting in the city, and Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. Thereafter, Cyrus liberated the Jewish exiles and sent them back to Jerusalem with instructions to rebuild Jehovah"s temple there."The Encyclopedia Americana (1956), Vol. III, p. 9; Light From the Ancient Past (Princeton, 1959), Jack Finegan, pp. 227-229; "All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial" (New York, 1983), pp. 282, 284, 295. (END QUOTE)

"Concerning your argument on inbreeding, it is true that we all have a common ancestor, but that doesn't lead to genetic mutations unless the two people who are breeding are closely related. This is proven by SCIENCE." I know... I already explained this in round 2.

It is round three, and Con has failed to give ANY evidence even suggesting God, regardless of what the Bible might say, is not real. He also hasn't given any valid arguments against the Bible or to defend the silly evolution theory.

I await Con's response. Thank you.
ignoramusslapper

Con

Ok, although it is not in order, I am going to address your last statement first. I shouldn't have to prove to you that god isn't real. You're supposed to give me evidence that he is real. There is no evidence that anything relating to your precious Jehovah actually happened. You know what? Jesus was thought to be real for a long time, his powers just exaggerated, but guess what? There is actually no evidence that he is real (http://y-jesus.com...). Face it, you rely on finding small holes in theories that are most likely correct instead of coming up with legitimate arguments.

Ok, regarding your first (real) point. how can a being simply have "always been there". What evidence do you have to back that up? None? Probably. Do you know why? Because you're making things up to sound smart. Well, I guess I should expect that from a religious conformist. You only follow your religion because you were either raised on it, or other people convinced you to join. But that's off topic.

On you saying that I haven't demonstrated that evolution isn't a silly theory, I literally put a link in my argument showing that scientists had observed evolving genomes. If that isn't concrete evidence, I don't know what is. Yet again though, you lack any actual evidence. I have asked you time and time again for real evidence, and yet you keep failing to come through, you just tell me to prove that god isn't real. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that's not the way it should be. If something has no evidence, I shouldn't have to disprove it, you should have to show me real evidence. In all honesty, you sound like a seven year old saying "prove it" in a mocking tone. Yes, you do indeed sound like a child.

Responding to your statement claiming that "...nothing caused God to exist. He has always been there.", explain to me how that works? How has he always been there? How can something not have a beginning? This argument is preposterous.

When I said that the writers of the Bible were not qualified, I was totally correct. I'm using common knowledge to infer that those people were probably highly religiously biased. And anyway, in your last argument you stated that farmers, shepherds, judges, etc. wrote the Bible, and now you're claiming that god wrote the Bible? Please explain this nonsense.

I never said that god caused these conditions, in fact, I said that we need to stop relying on god and blaming god for our mistakes. In reality, I actually asked why god would let these innocent people suffer when he has the power to stop it.

In response to your apparent belief that god's going to send his son down to fix everything, that is exactly the point I'm trying to convey about your belief. You all rely on an unknown entity to fix the earth, so you ignore real world problems. Why wouldn't god send down his son down right now? We all know we could use it.

So, your Jehovah's Witness video asks "how can a loving god be responsible for this?" simple. He doesn't exist. You claim that an evil being controls the world? Really? You're blaming something that's caused by huge corporations, corrupt government, and real people, on something that probably doesn't even exist?

Your source for the Bible quote I brought up is extremely unreliable. It is called "christiananswers.net". It's obviously going to have a strong bias. Who even knows what the original scripture says? It's been passed down through so many millennia.

And about Mary being impregnated; you can't use an argument about god doing something as if it's indeed fact in a debate about whether god exists or not. I said it before and you obviously completely disregarded it. And no, "god did it" is not a perfectly valid argument at all. Prove to me that god exists, or at least come up with some real evidence, and then the real world might consider it as a legitimate argument.

Your paper about the ark states that it was 40,000 cubic meters. How did a 400 year old man build a 40,000 cubic meter ark out of wood? Even if he did have 120 years? In fact, how did he live to be 400 years old in the first place. Another scientific inaccuracy in the Bible. Big surprise there.

And saying that Satan was "talking through the snake" doesn't make it any more probable. The snake would still need human tongue, mouth, and vocal chord to speak.

No. Homosexuality is not an imperfection. It has been proved numerous times to be just as normal as heterosexuality. And you're asking these people to suppress the urges that are only natural for a reward that probably doesn't exist. This is what's wrong with the human race. Not Satan. Not an evil man in the sky making bad things happen. People like you.

I was using the analogy for your sake, not mine.

You did indeed state in your first argument that carbon dating is not accurate, so, like the Bible, you have contradicted yourself. You can't just pick when things are right and when they are wrong when they benefit you.

And again, regarding your statement on me not giving evidence that god isn't real, I have given many points of evidence on why my beliefs are real, and you have given none.

I await Pro's response. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Bible2000

Pro

Con, I already made this clear in round 1, we are debating if there most likely is a God or not. As Con, you do have to prove God most likely does not exist, just like I have to prove he most likely exists. "Whoever gives the most evidence supporting their side should get the majority of votes."

Con has constantly said in every single round that there is no evidence of God. However, I have demonstrated there is overwhelming evidence suggesting God is most likely real. The evidence I have provided has been both scientific and scriptural. Con has not given valid reasons why my arguments would be invalid. In fact, even republicofdhar, an atheist in the audience, would not agree with you: "these are some of the best arguments I have heard in favour of God's existence, and that's coming from an atheist." Most importantly, even if Con proved the theory of evolution was a fact, he is not focusing on the most important thing, proving that God most likely does not exist. Just because of this, he is already losing this debate.

In round three, I said Con had not yet given valid arguments defending the evolution theory. In response, he says. "I literally put a link in my argument". Here is his link he talks about: http://www.scientificamerican.com...

It's basically about how the theory of evolution is possible through beneficial mutations. However, what this website doesn't tell you is all the information I have given about mutations in this debate which you can review in my round 1. So, yeah. Con has not yet given any valid argument defending the theory of evolution.

Con also said there is no evidence for Jesus. That is off topic because I don't even believe Jesus is God. But here are some non-Christian sources of Jesus: http://www.bethinking.org...

Con also does not fully understand how something could "always be there", so he rejects this idea. Should we really expect to fully comprehend a being so great that he could cause the vast, complex, and orderly universe to exist? Science tells us the sun's surface temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin or 9,941 degrees Fahrenheit. Do you reject this idea because you can't comprehend such an intense heat? We had a beginning, so we can't fully understand a being that has always been there. However, we know this must be true about the origin of all things. Think about it. Everything with a beginning has something causing it to begin. But can the origin of ALL things have a beginning? No! Nothing causes the origin of all things to begin, the origin of all things causes everything else to exist. How can it do that if it doesn't exist in the first place? So, it must have always been there.

"And anyway, in your last argument you stated that farmers, shepherds, judges, etc. wrote the Bible, and now you're claiming that god wrote the Bible? Please explain this nonsense." It's not nonsense, really. I am explaining what the Bible writers were before they became Bible writers, and understand that a writer is not necessarily the same thing as an author. The Bible writers simply wrote what the author told them. There is nothing more to argue about this. Until you give evidence that God most likely does not exist, he most likely does. And, therefore, he is the one that has the authority to decide who is qualified to write his book, not you. Don't waste your characters trying to prove that the Bible writers were not qualified, because I certainly will not waste my characters on this anymore. I've already said what I have to say about this.

Con's following arguments are about why doesn't God end suffering now and that we need to stop depending in a God that most likely does not exist. I already gave Con a link where he could find the answer to his question about suffering: http://www.jw.org...

However, this is not relevant to the debate. It does not prove God most likely does not exist. It just shows Con's lack of Biblical knowledge. So, that argument is invalid. Your lack of knowledge about what God's word teaches is not evidence against it. And, concerning his statement that we shouldn't depend on a God that most likely doesn't exist, this is not a valid argument until you actually prove God does not exist. You can't? Then you shouldn't have accepted the debate. The rules were clear in round 1 after I gave my beginning arguments.

Con believes my source about the Hebrew word "kanaph" was unreliable. Perhaps this other source will convince him: http://www.bluethread.com...

(BEGINNING OF QUOTE) Kanaph: "Corner or extremity, perhaps of a garment. Also means wing." (END OF QUOTE)

Con also asks how Noah could live to be 400 years old. For the same reason that the earlier descendants of Adam and Eve could live even longer and incest without worrying about mutations. Humans were closer to perfection. Those 400 years are nothing compared to what God originally purposed, that humans lived forever.

Con argues homosexuality is not an imperfection because it is "normal". First of all, that is an opinion, not a valid argument. Secondly, to avoid this kind of confusion, I clearly explained that perfection has to do with God's will for his creation. God created man to be with woman. That is why only a man with a woman can reproduce. Adam and Eve sinned, they lost their perfection, and AFTERWARDS some people started being born with sexual attraction towards the same gender. Was this his purpose for his creation? No, and that is clear in the Bible. That is why it is an imperfection, and imperfections are temporary. Perfection has nothing to do with what you consider "normal".

Oh, how nice. First he calls me a seven year old, and now he says I am, "what's wrong with the human race". How professional...

And no, Con, I never suggested carbon dating was wrong. If it was, would I really use it as evidence for the Bible? How exactly does carbon dating prove the theory of evolution? Enlighten us, Con. I eagerly await your response. Thank You.
ignoramusslapper

Con

Something either exists or it doesn't. If something exists, it can be scientifically quantified (measured and evaluated relative to its mass, energy, location, capabilities, and other qualities). For example, scientists have quantified millions of items ranging from from dark holes in outer space to tiny atomic particles (such as the recently discovered Higgs Boson). If something cannot be scientifically quantified, it does not exist (in the real universe). Therefor, god does NOT exist. How is that for a valid argument?

Religion, throughout history, has been used to control the masses, rather than enlighten them. An example of this includes the Christian crusades, and the present day suicide bombings of Muslims. Are (insert any faith here) really that different? No. Religion is something that was made up thousands of years ago. The Bible, often entire verses, stories, and anecdotes were falsified for the sake of making a point. Even the concept of the "holy trinity" is a fabrication created not by any god, but for political reasons by a zealot named Theophilus of of Antioch in 412 AD.

You denied that evolution was possible through genetic mutations, but the article I shared with you shows that it is and has been observed. So yeah, I have

Ok, you keep bringing up what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, when the argument is that "God Most Likely Exists", not "What I Believe is Correct". So your Jehovah's Witness arguments are invalid. Again, also, I never said that I blame the world's problems on god, I said that I blamed them on real people and we should stop blaming supernatural powers, like the giant evil man in the sky that Jehovah's Witnesses apparently believe in.

Actually, I do believe the sun is that hot, because it has actual proof.

Wow. You said that "a writer is not necessarily the same thing as an author", when the Oxford dictionary definition of the word "author" is "a writer of a book, article, or report". So yes, a writer of a written work is indeed the author of it. So this is still nonsense. And as you have read previously in this argument, I gave solid evidence.

Disregarding god, it has never in human history been possible to live to 400 years old. Anthropologists have studied humans from Noah's time, and bak then the age expectancy was even lower than it is today.

No, homosexuality being normal is not an opinion, it is fact. Saying that homosexuality is not normal is like saying that being black is not normal.

Ok, you're trying to talk to me about being professional? You cut off my quotes to twist my words around, and you, in previous debates, used winky faces. Now that's what I call unprofessional.

Carbon dating shows that evolution is true by showing that different versions of creatures who had the same origin existed at the same time, and at separate times. There. I've "enlightened" you.
Debate Round No. 4
Bible2000

Pro

How lovely! Con has descended from name calling to plagiarism. Here is the first thing Con has plagiarized: "If something exists, it can be scientifically quantified (measured and evaluated relative to its mass, energy, location, capabilities, and other qualities). For example, scientists have quantified millions of items ranging from from dark holes in outer space to tiny atomic particles (such as the recently discovered Higgs Boson). If something cannot be scientifically quantified, it does not exist (in the real universe)." It is from a wikiHow article titled, "How to Argue That God Does Not Exist": http://www.wikihow.com....

Con, I have no problem with you using arguments from other websites, I do it too. But don't take the credit. That's going to cost you points due to poor conduct. Always give credit to the original author. I will give you an example. The following is from: http://www.str.org...

(BEGINNING OF QUOTE) I have four responses to this challenge. Here"s the first one: If God does exist; science is incapable of discovering that He exists. Science is a tool for discovering things that exist in the natural universe like protons, neutrons, and electrons. God, by definition, is a super-natural being, existing outside the physical universe. Science is incapable of discovering things outside of the physical world. Science is irrelevant when it comes to discovering God"s existence because science is incapable of measuring the existence of God.

My second comment is that this challenge presumes that science is the only way that we can come to know something exists. This is a mistake in thought because there are many things that are real, significant, and important that science has no way of proving. For example, love. What is love? Do I love my wife? This is a question that science can"t even begin to address. What is a virtue? What is a vice? Should I kill my neighbor? Is what the Third Reich did in World War II appropriate or immoral? These questions are not addressable by the tools of science. Therefore, presuming science is the only way of knowing things is a mistaken assumption.

In reality, science is just one tool out of many to determine what actually exists in the real world. In a previous video, I mentioned different epistemological tools that we have to discover whether things exist. Logic, historical inquiry, introspection, and testimony are all tools used to discover whether something exists and what it"s like. Science is one of tool, but it"s not the only tool. Some of the other tools are more efficient, accurate, and quick than science is at discovering the truth.

A third problem with this challenge is that there is a fatal flaw in the logic of this objection. Here"s the principle that this objection offers: The only things we can know exist are the things that are scientifically quantifiable. Here"s my question: Is that principle scientifically quantifiable? The answer is no. That statement is a philosophical claim, which cannot be addressed scientifically. This is what it means to say that the objection is self-refuting or self-contradictory. This objection can"t even satisfy its own criteria. It"s a nonsensical statement.

The fourth response I have to this objection is that we have good reasons to think that God exists. Some of them are based on scientific arguments. I"m not saying that determining whether God exists is a scientifically quantifiable endeavor. Rather, some of the evidence we offer in favor of God"s existence relies on scientific data.

For example, the cosmological argument for God"s existence relies upon scientific data pertaining to the fact that the universe has a beginning. It began at a finite time in the past. Some of the other arguments we offer in favor of God"s existence have to do with a fine-tuning of the universe. There are cosmological constants like the nuclear force or the law of gravity that are balanced on a razor"s edge. If they fall a fraction of a percentage in either way, then no life would be possible. These scientific constants that we discover through scientific endeavors can be used in our arguments for God"s existence.

There is a tremendous amount of information found in DNA. That information doesn"t just come out of nowhere. There must be a mind that infused DNA with information. The point is, there is plenty of evidence that God exists that relies on scientific arguments. (END OF QUOTE)

Con continues to plagiarize when he says: "Religion, throughout history, has been used to control the masses, rather than enlighten them. An example of this includes the Christian crusades, and the present day suicide bombings of Muslims. Are (insert any faith here) really that different? No. Religion is something that was made up thousands of years ago. The Bible, often entire verses, stories, and anecdotes were falsified for the sake of making a point. Even the concept of the "holy trinity" is a fabrication created not by any god, but for political reasons by a zealot named Theophilus of of Antioch in 412 AD." All this is from the same wikiHow article.

Just for plagiarism, your arguments are invalid, but I wont ignore them. Again, your lack of Bible knowledge is not evidence against it or against God. The Bible mentions a symbolic woman, Babylon the Great. This woman represents false religion. And here is one of the things the Bible says about her: "In her was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth." (Revelation 18:24)

"False religion has persecuted and killed faithful servants of God and has been responsible for the death of millions in warfare." http://wol.jw.org...

God does not approve the atrocities these religions are doing in his name, and that is why the Bible says, "Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues." (Revelation 18:4, 5).

Is my faith any different? Yes. First of all, we don't go to war. You can read about that here: http://www.jw.org...

Secondly, have you heard of Jehovah Witness suicide bombers? I haven't.

And, for your information, we don't believe in trinity. Here are two links about why we don't:

http://www.jw.org...

http://www.jw.org...

Con thinks I said evolution was possible through genetic mutations. I never denied this. Mutations is one of the ways evolution happens, and I don't deny this fact. But, for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of favorable mutations. We simply do not observe this in nature.

(BEGINNING OF QUOTE) There have been a few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don"t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite, organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain? (END OF QUOTE) "The New Answers Book Volume 2".

Although Con could not comprehend the intense heat of the sun, he will accept it because it is what science teaches us. Well, I accept God has always been there because, first of all, that is what science suggests about the origin of all things, and secondly, because that is what the Bible teaches. You can review the evidence for the Bible in my round 3.

Here is the British Dictionary definition for the word writer: "the person who has written something specified". And here is the definition for author: "an originator or creator". There is the difference. The author is the originator of the book, and the writers write what the originator told them.

This is not a debate whether homosexuality is normal or not. However, according to the Biblical definition of perfection, homosexuality is an imperfection whether you consider it normal or not. Being black is not an imperfection. Adam and Eve could have been black. The Bible doesn't say anything negative about anyone for their skin color.

Con once again says that carbon dating proves the theory of evolution. He says, "Carbon dating shows that evolution is true by showing that different versions of creatures who had the same origin existed at the same time, and at separate times." His explanation is worded quite strangely, and he gives no sources for reliability either. I will allow Con in round 5 to fix this specific argument. However, round 5 will be just to summarize the evidence we have given for our side, no extra arguments.

I await your response, Con. Thank you.
ignoramusslapper

Con

Half way through writing my fifth argument I realized that I'm debating a stranger on the internet and that I don't really care.

Loser talk? Probably. So congrats I guess.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NoobBomb 2 years ago
NoobBomb
@Bible2000

Excuse me for not replying faster, it's just that I had a lot of work to do.

(...however, the Bible claims to be inspired by God.)
Ok so you agree that it is unreasonable to create some unsupported entity to explain what cannot be explained with current information, but you also state that god does not apply to this, because he is supported by bible. The problem with this is that bible cannot count as support for its own claims. What bible claims is absolutely irrelevant when it gets down to supporting these claims. Support must be external and independent. Argument that bible can prove its own claims is known as "circular reasoning" fallacy.

(If you can see God's power through fulfilled prophecies, is it unreasonable to accept his existence?)
Each claim must be evaluated separately. Even if some claims in bible were correct, doesn't mean that we should automatically accept all of its claims. (Tell me specific prophecies which were fulfilled. Then we will look at ratio between successful prophecies and unsuccessful ones and see whether or not success % is higher than that of simple guess)

(The argument is known as Pascal's wager)
I know what is Pascal's wager. It's a well known argument with well known flaw. Flaw lies in the fact, that pascal's wager does not take into account other gods. We do not know which god among thousands is the correct one so logically we do not know which one to follow. Another flaw is that this argument assumes that god would be happy with you believing in him just because you are afraid from consequences of not believing.

(you followed a book that gives practical advice to live happy life)
Bible does not tell us anything new. We already knew all of bibles "advice" long before bible was written. Reason for this is that bible did not create/invent morals.We had them long before bible. Reason for that is empathy. On top of that,commandments written in bible were taken and rephrased from much older cultures, like
Posted by Bible2000 2 years ago
Bible2000
@NoobBomb

Of course it would be unreasonable to create some unsupported entity. However, the Bible claims to be inspired by God. If you can see this God's power in his creation and right there in his word the Bible, through fulfilled prophecies for example, is it unreasonable to accept his existence? And what exactly do you lose for accepting it? The argument is known as Pascal's wager. If God exists and you deny it, you don't benefit from his kingdom but, instead, will be destroyed. If he doesn't exist but accept his existence, you followed a book that gives practical advice to live a happy life now that, if everyone followed, the world would be a much better place.
Posted by NoobBomb 2 years ago
NoobBomb
@Bible2000

You are basically saying that with our current information this situation cannot be explained and I agree, but... If you re-read my example, you will see that I already addressed this. In my example, you come home, unlock your door and find brand new bike (or anything for that matter) in your living room. You are living alone and only you have keys. In this situation, current knowledge also cannot explain it. No one could have gotten in since only you have keys so this situation cannot be explained with current knowledge as well. Yet, I'm pretty sure that you would not create some unsupported, yet possible entity/creature to explain this. Like I already said, this is my problem. In fundamentally same situations you are reasoning differently. In bike example, you do not create unsupported creatures/entities to explain what cannot be explain with current information, in universe example you are. I will speculate that reason for this is that in one example you have emotional bias and in other one you dont, because I see no other explanation why would you approach same situations differently.
Posted by Bible2000 2 years ago
Bible2000
@NoobBomb

You say the most rational thing to do in this sort of situation is look for an answer in what we already know, and I agree. So, what do we know? We know the universe had a beginning. We also know that everything with a beginning has something causing it to begin. And many scientists will agree that cause is the Big Bang. However, the Big Bang must have had its own cause, because it had a beginning. And, surely, such an explosion would require a decrease of entropy, which is the unavailability of thermal energy that is transformed into mechanical work, or what we call "order". But, according to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy tends to increase. If the availability of thermal energy is constantly decreasing, how can there ever be enough to even cause the Big Bang? And how could this explosion, which you feel happened randomly by chance without a creator, create such an orderly universe that follows laws of mathematics! It would be easy to imagine a random universe with constant unpredictable conditions, and even things popping in and out of existence coming from an explosion that just randomly happens from basically nothing. Consider this quote from Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Winner in Physics: "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle." (http://www.tokseminars.org...)

But that's just what we know about science. What we know about the Bible can give us more conviction. Consider the Bible prophecies from this debate I am having with Burncastle: http://www.debate.org...

God is showing his power in his creation and right there in his word the Bible! It is depressing that there are many who are ignoring what is right in front of them.
Posted by NoobBomb 2 years ago
NoobBomb
"God most likely exists"

Ok, so here's the problem. You come home. Unlock your door and find brand new bike in your living room. You are living alone and no one else have keys. Do you create theoretically possible yet unsupported entity to explain situation? Do you say that aliens or fairies did it? Of course not! You will look for answer in what we already know. You will probably think that your friends somehow got in your house and decided to prank you. Or you might even think that you have mental problems related to memory loss. You will not, hopefully, create some imaginary yet theoretically possible entity to explain situation. This is the problem. In every day life situations you are going to act and reason rationally, but when it comes to religion you are being irrational. You are creating unsupported, yet possible entity to explain situation where as in other situations you would look for answer in what we already known.

Of course, what we already know for a fact is more probable solution than something we do not know for a fact. Its more probable that your friends, somehow, left that bike there because we, at least know for a fact that those friends exist. Same is with god. We do know that laws of physics exist for a fact so rationally it's going to be more probable explanation. Stop rationalizing your emotion-based beliefs. Its unintelligent and quiet frankly sad.
Posted by Bible2000 2 years ago
Bible2000
I challenged Burncastle to a debate about if it is reasonable to believe that God exists. It is good that he is a skeptic. Why stay in a faith if it can't stand to scrutiny? However, this too applies to atheism. Enjoy:

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
I already had my share of debates about evolution, including a couple on this site, you can check them out if you want to see "evidence for evolution". That being said, I would gladly accept a challenge on the existence of God if it is worded as followed: is it reasonable to believe that a God exists? I will even let you defend an abstract deist God if you want (as opposed to the Christian God in particular), as long as you define properly.
Posted by Bible2000 2 years ago
Bible2000
@Burncastle

I suggest you read my round 5 as well to see how science suggests God exists, why science will never disprove God, and what is wrong with the presumption that science is the only way that we can come to know something exists.
Posted by Bible2000 2 years ago
Bible2000
@Burncastle

The Bible is not a science textbook. However, it does not contradict ACTUAL science, which does not include silly theories. You should review my rounds 2 and 3 to see the Bible is scientifically accurate and how I answered to supposed Bible scientific inaccuracies. If you have any actual evidence about the theory of evolution that Con has not given, I will gladly debate you about it. It is clear why I consider it a silly theory in my round 1.
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
The fact that there are some people who believe that the Bible is scientifically accurate is depressing and somewhat scary. I don't mind the fact that there are people who are unconvinced by the theory of evolution (most of them are simply unaware of the evidence), but I do have a problem with people claiming that a scientifically disproven book is actually supported by science. This is worse than science denial, it's science misrepresentation.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Aithlin 2 years ago
Aithlin
Bible2000ignoramusslapperTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: A concession by CON.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Bible2000ignoramusslapperTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: 5th Round Concession.
Vote Placed by andymcstab 2 years ago
andymcstab
Bible2000ignoramusslapperTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Not an enjoyable debate to read, one annoyingly smug, the other bitchy. Pro wins though, not just because CON basically forfeit the last round but because his only argument suggesting Gods existence was never properly refuted.