God of the Bible (which I am for) vs Atheism
Debate Rounds (5)
An agreement to debate proves that God exists. A debate presupposes truth. Truth presupposes God. You cannot get truth from an evolved meat machine. Open a shaken up can of Coke and a can of Sprite. The winner of this debate is the drink that produces the most fizz. What"s the difference between that and our debate, if there is no god? Your thoughts are simply brain fizz. How do you get truth from that? So I would first ask - how do you get truth without God? Until you answer that question, you're borrowing from my worldview, which states that God exists.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Psalm 14:1-7 (KJV)
I ask God for forgiveness, for I am going against him from my will.
Nonetheless, I accept.
Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
"Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?" Firstly, this context is very contradicting to my opponents side. There are many answers I could tell you but I will ask you a question that answers your question: Could YOU be wrong about everything YOU think YOU know? I agree, you could be wrong, but that does not prove that you are right. The bible can have false information and context in. What if Noah never built an ark? What if there never was a flood? What if..? and it carries on. But let me reason you into thinking about it for a second. We do not have credible sources of the Bible. The bible has been made centuries, maybe thousands of years ago. Throughout those years, many people can change the context of the real story. [For example, the game called telephone. Lets say the statement you start off with is "Sally is funny" but it ends with "SAT's are fake."] This is like the bible. It has been retold my many people, and you never know what the truth is. Long story short, the bible might be fake.
Basically summed up my argument into this refutation, but I will still show you my argument.
My first argument is on the false information.
As I stated before, the bible can have false and misinterpreted information on it. You can't just say it is real because God is. What if there is no heaven or hell? You do not have source on the fact that Jesus/God is real. It could all be fake. Whereas, scientist have actually studied and tracked down everything, therefore bringing in more reliable sources and evidence that earth might be made in a big bang and that humans were made from evolution. We can't rely on one source, which is the bible in Christian/Catholic stances.
My second argument is on the fact that there might not even be a god.
Just think about it for a second. If you are Christian, you think that Allah isn't real. But vice verse is still the same. We may never know which God is real or not, which also leads me into false information, like my first argument. But atheists don't believe in a God. Maybe Christians are wrong about God, and that there is no God and we don't know if that's real or not. Islam's might be wrong about Allah, that Allah isn't real as well. But Atheists do not believe in any god, therefore narrowing down the reliable sources. It would be better to not believe than believing at all
Again, please do not refute against the fact I am going against my religion, for that is irrelevant to this case.
Nonetheless, I again ask God for forgiveness.
Thank you for letting me debate
If you say "yes", then it logically follows that you know nothing. If I told you"the speed limit outside is 60k/mph, but I could be wrong." then I don't *know* the speed limit. In the same way, if you could be wrong about everything you think you know, it follows that you know nothing - in which case you can't know what I can know, which you started to talk about...
If you say "no", then I would like you to tell me one thing you can know for certain.
Firstly, don't get me wrong but this is not as simple as a yes or no unless my opponents do not understand the depth of this debate. You don't even need to know what the answer is, you already know from reading my paragraph of "fanciness" but because you don't get the simplicity of the answer I'll just say it: No.
What if I said yes? I know nothing according to the instigators logic. My opponents stated I could be wrong in everything I know, but that contradicts his side too. He could be wrong with everything he knows, therefore not making credible reliance. But however, this debate is not focused around that matter.
One thing I know for certain? You really want me to talk about that?
I will if you answer this question: what is one thing you are certain?
I have lost interest in this debate due to my opponents rudeness towards my presence, and he has not given any sufficient arguments, so vote con.
Now - what's one thing *I* know? That God exists. How do I know that? Because he revealed it to us through his divine revelation.
Please answer the question. Could you be wrong about everything you know - yes, or no.
You do not know that God exists, that he revealed it through making this world. The bible could be wrong. Even I could be wrong, but if we weight out a balance, with one side of knowing God exists and another side believing scientific reasoning what weighs it out? We only have the bible for evidence on the left side, and it could be historically inaccurate for telling ancestor by ancestor can change words like the game called Telephone. We cannot trust the bible, it could be altered in many ways yet your side fails to realize that.
However on the right side, we have evidence. They studied non-stop about his, and made diagrams charts etc. They gave us clear reasoning that shows more reliability as the Big Bang
My opponents have not stated any argumentative statements supporting his side other than a question.
He has not refuted my arguments and all of my point and reasoning still stands.
Please vote con.
I ask God for forgiveness
Best wishes to pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very, very weak debate. But I give arguments to Con based on the two simple statements made. Pro's only real "argument" was that he knows God exists, because God revealed it through divine revelation. Pro must prove this, which they didn't, they simply said it happened. Con wins because they mentioned that there are alternate scientific theories that have more credibility than God.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.