The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

God's Not Dead

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,324 times Debate No: 57062
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




To say there is no evidence for a creator is like saying the thousands of paintings in an art museum could not have been painted because there are no artists visible in the gallery. Is it reasonable to believe that life arose spontaneously from nothing, for no reason or purpose, guided by the "blind watchmaker" of natural selection? God gave up his son, Jesus Christ, to come to Earth as the one and only perfect human being while performing miracles. He became the ultimate sacrifice for humanity by dying a gruesome death innocently. Afterwards, he rose from the grave, while leaving an empty tomb behind.


I would first like to thank my opponent for this debate. This topic is always fun and interesting.
I am going to assume the first round is for acceptance/ outline because nothing in my opponent's first round remotely constitutes an argument.
I will argue for Nietzsche's famous phrase "god is dead". This is of course disingenuous because there never was a god, but I assume you guys know the context of the quote.
I will have 5 main points:
1.There is no evidence for a god, even though my opponent seems to think there is.
2. As we learn more we kill off invented gods.
3.Theism is utterly incoherent.
4.There is no need for a god.
5.The bible is ridiculous

(ps: The movie God Is Not Dead is an utterly absurd movie. The arguments presented by the protagonist suck. It depicts Atheists and Muslims in the worst light. No real Atheist debater would be as inept as the Atheist in that movie.)

I await your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


If you were walking through the woods and found a turtle on top of a fence post, you could rationally conclude that someone put it there. Without explanation, time and chance would not eventually place a turtle on top of a fence post. When we try to trace an event to its cause(s), we reach a never-ending pattern. Science insists on this very law. With origins, we have two options: an infinite chain of natural causes, or the one absolute cause that initiated everything. Evolution and the Big Bang require life and matter to already be present. Where did that come from? Therefore, naturalism does not give any observational science either.

The first cause of limitless space must be infinite.
The first cause of endless time must be eternal.
The first cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent.
The first cause of universal interrelationships must be omnipresent.
The first cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient.
The first cause of spiritual values must be spiritual.
The first cause of human responsibility must be volitional.
The first cause of human integrity must be truthful.
The first cause of human love must be loving.
The first cause of life must be living.

Admiring the beauty within and outside of the Earth does not lead me to think it was an accident, or caused by natural causes. It supports Psalm 19:1- "...the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." It supports Genesis 1:31- And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. The only possible source of absolute authority is an absolute perfect will.

The Moral Law, or Law of Human Nature, is not simply a fact about human behavior in the same way as the Law of Gravitation is, or may be, simply a fact about how heavy objects behave. On the other hand, it is not a mere fancy, for we cannot get rid of the idea, and most of the things we say and think about men would be reduced to nonsense if we did. And it is not simple a statement about how we should like men to behave for our own convenience; for the behavior we call bad or unfair is not exactly the same as the behavior we find inconvenient, and may even be the opposite. Consequently, the rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing"a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves. -C.S. Lewis

The Earth's size is perfect. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible to sustain humans, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal, and human life. The Earth is located the perfect distance from the sun. If the Earth were any further away, we would freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional difference would make life impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph while giving us changing seasons annually. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface to be properly warmed and cooled every day. And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. It creates important ocean tides so waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over the continents.

The universe teaches us that order does not happen by itself. An explosion that would eventually cause all of these orderly processes is very unlikely when compared to a divine Creator creating them.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second...
The human eye processes more than 1.5 million messages a second...

What part of science explains the living soul (life/conscience)?
What part of science explains emotions?

Genesis 2:7- Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
2 Peter 1:3- His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence...

The reason we exist on Earth is because a loving God reigns who would not force his people to have a relationship with him. That loving God allows us to experience and explore his magnificent creation. During our life, we come across choices of whether we want to follow God's will or follow our earthly wills. Without free-will, we would not be having this discussion. Without free-will, life would not be necessary. In the Old Testament, God has to show himself, but once Jesus came to Earth as God in flesh (as the Old Testament prophesied), we then turn to him for our salvation. He has shown us his glory all around us, and if we suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18), then we can easily dismiss the truth of God that is written on our hearts (Romans 2:15; Hebrews 10:16; Jeremiah 31:33), and then believe anything.

Statistics and Scriptures from "Institute for Creation Research"


All of Pro's arguments are either based on an argument from ignorance or violate Occam's razor or misuse science.
In my next round I will debunk these in detail, however I will first offer my case.

1. There is no evidence for god, however there is anti-evidence.
-The problem of evil: This a huge problem for theism, many chalk it up to free will, but this is inadequate.
God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).
Evil and god as described by theism can not logically co-exist.

Gratuitous evil possess an even bigger problem. Babies born with cancer is no one's free will, it naturally occurs. How can one reconcile this? NO

Poor design:
If theism was true and the universe was designed for life why is it that life has to adapt it or die?
This makes no sense.
Also 99.9% of life ever to exist on the planet has gone extinct.
99.9% of the universe we know is baron.
2.5 of the water is drinkable
15% of the world is hospitable.
We are terribly insignificant in the universe; it is almost absurd to think it was designed for us.

Math:-Sheer mathematical implausibility.
How many gods have been proposed in history? Over 3000. Let's take this one god, and put this over 3000. The calculation gives us the answer of 0.00033333. If we care about math, it is ridiculously improbable the god we are discussing exists.
Now my opponent and I agree that 99.99999% of these are false. We just differ on this one.

2.As we learn more and understand the human condition we understand god as a natural phenomenon and kill supernatural explanations:
-Why have people invented gods?
Well throughout history, gods have primarily been invented to explain things.
Thor-- the lovely Norse god of thunder. People used to not understand natural forces, so they invented gods to explain them. Is god's existence explained by thunder? Nope
We could go on for quite a while about god's and what they symbolize. But the point I'm trying to make is, is that god's are usually present when we don't know something. This is referred to as god of the gaps. I'm not saying my opponent is doing this, she just is suffering from a misunderstanding of the science. The main point is the more we learn the less we need gods.
-For power and to justify bad things.
Humans are naturally good. If we naturally thought killing and acts like killing were moral, we would not have made it this far. Naturally humans will strongly resist the notion of burning people at stake, but if you introduce god, and contingent punishment people are all for it.
The Nazi party thought they were doing gods work.
Islamic extremist appeal to god to justify there poor acts.
Now I'm not saying religion is all bad; I personally think religion is great, but I am saying it is trivially easy to justify bad things with god.
Humans fear the unknown. Death is profoundly scary, so it is incredibly normal for someone to create something for consolation. The same is true for justice, we want justice. Theists love saying, hey if there is no god people can do whatever they want and they will have no punishment.
Well yea that's true, but then there would be no justice, so it's sensible that someone would create a false justice paradigm to deter bad acts.

3: Theism is utterly incoherent:
My opponent has defined god as: Infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, spiritual, volitional, truthful, loving, living.
He has added a few additional traits that I was not anticipating, however he has made this god even more unlikely .
I tried to copy and paste the content from my prior essay on the contradictions of god and there is not enough characters, so I shall have to paraphrase in order to make my points.
God is essentially a square circle.
God can not be omniscient and be volitional.
If god is omniscient then he knows everything.
If he knows everything then he knows his own future.
If he absolutely knows his own future then he can not change it(because he would have known he would change it, thus being apart of his original plan).
Therefor god can not be omniscient and volitional.
Love and hell are incompatible:
Hell is a huge problem. Now I will concede that if my agnostic atheism has harmed anybody, or caused me to harm anybody and god thinks I need to be punished, then fine, but not forever. The point of a punishment is to bring about more well being for the individual later. What greater good can possibly come from someone being in hell forever? NONE. "God has all wisdom. He works everything out for the good of his people ", obviously not, because eternal suffering is to no one's greater good. What does this say about the character of individuals in heaven? They can manage to enjoy themselves, while countless people burn in agony. Let's add god's omniscience. An infinite amount of years ago god was aware of your birth, death and fate. Propose you end up in hell, god knew this for all eternity, yet he let you be born, only to suffer, and yet he is going to fault you, even though he knew. You know this is not characteristic of a loving god.

-Omnipresence and eternality/ infinite being:
It is also agreed that god is eternal and given god has omnipresence, it follows that god has been present everywhere forever. It is accepted that the universe has existed for thirteen point seven billion years, but given god is eternal, god existed prior to that. However it is also accepted that there was nothing before the universe, so it follows that god was present everywhere when nothing existed. It logically follows at that time god was nothing. This is often avoided by saying god exists outside of space time. For this to be the case, the word exist would have to be used in a way that is completely different from its usual definition. If one was to say god existed before time, it is the same as saying god existed for no unit of time, and in the general usage of the word exist, if something exists for no unit of time, it doesn't or didn't exist. In regards to space, the same problem arises; if god was to exist before space, it is the same as saying he existed in no space, and consequently if something exists no space, it does not actually exist. It can still exist as an abstract concept, such as numbers, but the definition of god is that god actually exists. The implications of god's omnipresence is contradictory to the concept of god.
Theism is even more incoherent but I must stop in order to get to my point four and five.
I shall have to be brief.
4: Does there need to be a god? Well not for the universe existing:
-Quantum physics.
First on causation. Not everything has a cause. Particles come into existence with no cause.
Quantum physics applied to the universe, will produce a universe from nothing.

1. Let's visit the multiverse. The multiverse is a natural consequence of inflation. Via BICEP2 Primordial gravitation waves have been detected, which is almost indisputable proof of inflation.
Inflation accounts for the:
1.Uniformity. The cosmic background radiation is quite uniform. Inflation adequately accounts for the uniformity. A uniform region expanded rapidly, evolving into our visible universe.
2. Mass density. Inflation predicts the omega should 1. The Planck satellite measures the omega as 1, which means our universe should be flat, which it is.
3.Small non-uniformity. The small non-uniformity in the universe is easily accounted for by quantum fluctuations, which have been observed in the CBR.
As explained the multiverse is a consequence of inflation. All the other predictions have come true. I would say that would constitute a good reason to think the multiverse is true.
Via inflation, some parts of the early universe expanded more than other, created bublbles of space time, which later developed into other universes, and our universe is just a bubble universe and requires no creator just a prior universe. The multiverse can be eternal.
Very briefly on morality: No god is needed for morality. We rationally deduce morality from the consequences of our actions.
next round I will address the rest of the points such as:
the bible
more quantum physics
more models.
Debate Round No. 2


God has blessed mankind by restraining our evil nature. Even with evil, there is also a force of good that keeps evil at bay. Evidently, God designed the laws of physics so that the more depraved people became, the worse consequences they suffer. In the case of the Aurora shooting, police arrived and kept the crazy person from killing everyone present. In reality, the existence of good is actually a bigger question to answer than the existence of evil. Evils existence is not evidence of God's absence in the universe, but from our very lives.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing the universe with when I called it unjust? Because there are things that are wrong, regardless of the country or context, there is a real moral law that we did not invent and from which we cannot escape. We no more invented morality than we invented numbers or even reason itself. These are things that are written on our hearts by our Creator. -C.S. Lewis

Sam Harris (devout atheist) said, "Morality comes down to this: judge your actions by whether they hurt everyone." Does this mean if I only hurt a few, I'm okay? That's like someone who committed murder standing before the judge and saying, "I know I killed that man, but think of all the people in this town I didn't kill." How could a blind process such as natural selection, which came into existence by chance, produce this universal sense of right and wrong? If life arose spontaneously from random chemical processes, (which is something that needs created), we would have absolutely no moral obligation.

God created things which had free-will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good, it is also free to be bad. And free-will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free-will? Because free-will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating. -C.S. Lewis

God has defined evil in his Word, he warns you to abstain from it with the loving freedom to do so anyway, and sent his son who willingly gave his life to conquer evil in the end. To me, that sounds like someone completely against evil. He is temporarily tolerating it so that one day he can separate good and evil, and allow his people to spend an eternity with the one that they served and enjoyed serving, with their free-wills intact. How much more loving can that be?

The Bible supported an expanding universe nearly 2,000 years before scientists confirmed it in the early 1900's. Isaiah 44:24 is one of 17 verses that support it: Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself...

Can you name one of those 3,000 invented Gods that came down to Earth to save humanity from their sinful nature? What about the opportunity to have a loving, personal relationship with the Creator of the universe? Other religions are set up to where its followers ascend the ladder to their God(s). Virtually all atheist scholars agree with the story of Jesus and his disciples except for his performed miracles and resurrection from the tomb. His tomb was owned by Joseph of Arimathea (a Jewish leader). The rumor of his body being stolen gives further evidence that the tomb was empty. The multiple groups of eyewitnesses would have all had to be delusional if his body was still in there, or just flat-out liars for no reason or purpose.

Multiple well-known atheists like Richard Dawkins have admitted to the universe appearing to be designed. But their second statement always is "Who created God?" Christians believe in a eternal God (one that lives in eternity past/present/future). In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). An all-powerful God that lives in eternity does not need created. If you believe that our universe has been created from a previous universe in a never-ending chain of universes, then creationism should definitely be taught in public schools as well. A loving and all-knowing God can know the choices you will make in the future, but will not force them. The Bible explains that God did not wire our minds to understand everything, such as the deeper definition of the word "eternity".

Any person that is evil can place a religious label on themselves, even the Christian label. If someone is committing acts similar to Hitler, then they do not understand the Word of God and they are missing the greatest commandments: love God with all your heart, and show it by the way you love each other. Do not let those people define the group as a whole. The terrorist attacks and tragedies that you speak of do not abide to the Word of God or were committed by people who were not claimed Christians.

Please address how an explosion like the Big Bang could accidentally cause the orderly processes of the Earth's rotation, orbit, and moon's orbit, as well as its perfect distance from the sun and the moon's distance from Earth. Also explain where science explains the formation of a living soul (conscience) and emotions, (which are all explained in the Word of God). I will list all of the fulfilled biblical prophecies in the next round.


Well to a christian who only wants to revalidate their faith or someone uneducated, pro's arguments might seem good, but they are non-sense.
I'll start with his opening statement and then move on to his statement last round and then if time permits, introduce new points.

-More on the watch maker and design:
Now the watch maker argument assumes design is an apparent attribute one would assume.
If there's a watch, someone who knows what a watch is would infer design, but one with no concept of a watch, would most likely conclude that the watch is naturally there.
Also how do you come to the conclusion the universe is designed. We have not experienced other universes to compare it to.
With the argument from design you encounter an infinite regression.
If anything with intelligence comes from prior intelligence, then god must have been designed. Is god not intelligent?
It is absurd to argue everything intelligent comes from prior intelligence but the most intelligent being conceivable doesn't.

KCA(first cause): This is a terribly presumptuous argument.
It presumes:
1. Everything has a cause
2. The universe has a cause
3. The universe has a transcendent cause
Axiom 1 is false. In quantum physics particles come in and out of existence with no cause.
Axiom 2 might be true. I will elaborate on axiom two in my discussion of plausible cosmological models.
Axiom 3 is so absurd that it ISN'T EVEN FALSE. One could never know if the universe has the transcendent cause; it isn't even testable.
This violates Occam's razor.
If it is true everything has a cause and the universe has a cause, then why can' the universe be the cause of its self.
Saying the universe has a transcendent cause raises unneeded questions that CAN'T EVER BE ANSWERED.
Axiom 3 does not follow from 1 and 2.
Both the design and KCA are terrible arguments.

The soul does not cause consciousness, also I would like you to demonstrate the existence of a soul.
Consciousness is all neurons and brain activity.
If you hurt your brain to a certain extent you will loose consciousness.
The mind is what the brain does.
If your sort of dualism were true, one would expect to keep consciousness and mind functioning despite physical brain damage, but this is not the case.
I will concede consciousness is a hard subject and we don't know the exact mechanism by which consciousness is developed however that does not refute the physical cause of consciousness.

-Emotions? Are you joking me? It seems my opponent has studied zero psychology.
In psychology, emotion is often defined as a complex state of feeling that results in physical and psychological changes that influence thought and behavior.
My favorite theory is the James-Lange theory:
You may observe an external stimulus that causes a physiological reaction. Your emotional response is dependent upon how you interpret those physical reactions.
Example:For example, suppose you are walking in the woods and you see a grizzly bear. You begin to tremble and your heart begins to race. The James-Lange theory proposes that you will interpret your physical reactions and conclude that you are frightened .
There are other theories such as the Cannon-Bard theory of evolution which states that emotions result when the thalamus sends a message to the brain in response to a stimulus, resulting in a physiological reaction.
Emotion is science.

-Fine tuning.
The only world view in which life permitting parameters mean anything is naturalism. On theism, I'm sure god could create life under any parameters.

"Please address how an explosion like the Big Bang could accidentally cause the orderly processes of the Earth's rotation, orbit, and moon's orbit, as well as its perfect distance from the sun and the moon's distance from Earth."

Once again THE MULTIVERSE. If there are an infinite amount of universes then some of them are bound to have life permitting parameters.
Pro has seemed to completely ignore my points about how baron the universe seems to be and how insignificant we are in the universe.

Do we need a god for a universe? NO

Self contained models:

-The Oscillating Universe
This is a self-contained model in which the universe evolves from a big bang, then expands and expands and then collapses upon it's self and then re-expands. This model is perfectly self-contained and no god is needed.

-Hartle Hawking
A boundless self contained universe model in which a creator is unneeded.

Once again, any universe that is described by quantum mechanics with non-zero energy and a time independent Hamiltonian is eternal in both arrows of time.

-Quantum fluctuation:

The universe is a quantum fluctuation. Suppose we have a timeline:
X and X are synonymous high entropy states. If you start in the middle with the low entropy state and go either right or left you will go to high entropy states.

-On low probability events and chance,
Any single event can take an infinite set of infinite sets of probabilities.
Given probability is on a scale from 0-100, but between these is an infinite set of infinite sets of probabilities it is impossible for an event to fall outside of this range.
Any event can naturally happen.
Low probability DOES NOT mean impossible.
An action is good only if it produces good outcomes. This is a way better system for two reasons.
1. It makes morality rational and makes one have a good reason for doing things.
2. If moral absolutes are true, you are not morally justified in doing anything immoral EVER.
You can not lie or kill EVER.
If a man breaks into your house with an axe and he asks where is your daughter hiding, it is your obligation to tell him.
If you could go back in time and kill Hitler, you wouldn't be justified.
Moral absolutes are literally insane. I am not even employing an reductio ad absurdum. These are natural consequences of moral absolutes.

Hitler was not a christian? Well I guess that's another debate. However it does validate my point that bad acts are trivially justified with religion, so you would expect people to invent gods to do so.

Now on the bible:
"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock." Psalms 137:9
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet." Timothy 2:12
"And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them." Jermiah 19:9
"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." Peter 2:18

2 Kings 2:23-24
King James Version (KJV)
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

The above conveys a homophobic, child hating, pro-slavery, misogynistic angry god.

This is exactly why the bible is non-sense. The good parts can be interpreted literally but brutal parts are figurative or metaphorical.
The parts that are offensive nonsense, we recognize as nonsense and we discard them. Why do we do this? Because as we become more rational and knowledgeable we see that such terrible acts are bad. We evolve past them.

Genesis: Genesis is complete non-sense. The characters don't permit me to go into great length. I ill partially explain and the rest will be in a link.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today.

The verse refers to "the face of the waters". If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accretion had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth.

However, most Biblical scholars believe that the "waters" referred to here are those in heaven, from which rain comes. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans.

But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong.
Next round I will talk about Jesus and objections.
Debate Round No. 3


Once again, an eternal God does not need created. The Bible says the human mind was not wired to understand the full nature of God. The parameters scientists have made for science will not allow the supernatural in anyway.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642/3"1727) was probably the greatest scientist of all time, discovering the spectrum of light as well as the laws of motion, gravity, and cooling; and also inventing the reflecting telescope and jointly inventing calculus. Yet he wrote more about the Bible than science, and was a creationist (and nothing discovered after Darwin would change that).

There are several challenging ideas in quantum mechanics. It is no wonder that some scientists remain skeptical of the entire subject. However; quantum mechanics has been proven invaluable in many areas. There are no strong competing explanations for transistor and laser operation, radioactivity, chemistry quantum numbers, magnetic effects, and a host of other areas. Aside from the silly and heretical interpretations which some have imposed on it, there is no necessary conflict between creation and quantum mechanics. Only time will tell whether quantum theory endures or is replaced by some better but entirely different theory. Meanwhile the topic offers an intriguing look at the deeper details of God's creation. Quantum originator Max Planck expressed this same view in a 1937 address. He stated that science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition," with the goal: "toward God!" (Gillispie, 1975).

You have stated multiple times, (which is true), that something is proven through observation and experimentation, otherwise known as using the scientific method. I am willing to admit the belief aspect of creationism. So, can you name one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution that proves a change of kinds (not species)? Also name some historical celebrities who were atheists.

If I asked you to make me a rose from scratch, you would probably say that you could not do it, but you say that it is not intelligently designed. You would have to start with the seed. If a human being can not create a rose, even though you claim it is not intelligently designed, then how could the universe form a rose through natural processes?

I guess the word "consciousness" was not what I was trying to refer to. Humans and other animals have living souls. What part of the Big Bang and evolution would give us life? You are a special and unique living and breathing human being made in the image of God. You explained neurological processes in the last round, but I want to know how it was first initiated. Also, you gave me the process of emotions, but we will just leave that at satisfactory for now.

Every diagram that I find depicting the layout of the universe shows everything spread out. For complex life to be only on one "known" planet just strengthens my faith in my creator God even more.

The clash is between moral absolutism and moral relativism. Hollywood, news media, and academia are advocates of the moral relativistic worldview. Moral Absolutism is concerned with right and wrong conduct. The absolute is what determines whether the action or conduct is right or wrong. Therefore, from the standpoint of moral absolute, some things are always right and some things are always wrong no matter how one tries to rationalize them. Moral absolutism emerges from a theistic worldview. Moral Relativism is defined as the belief that conflicting moral beliefs are true. This carries the idea that what you regard as a right conduct may be a right conduct for you, but not for me. To put it another way, "Relativism [insists that] what is true for the individual replaces the search for absolute truth" (Mark P. Cosgrove, Foundations of Christian Thought, 96). "These conflicting moral beliefs may exist in the case of two or more individuals or in different cultures (cultural relativism) or in different historical epochs (historical relativism)" (Ronald Nash, Life's Ultimate Questions, 343). Moral Relativism is an attempt to undermine the claim that there is an objective moral law or moral absolute that is the same for all human beings. J. P. Moreland has challenged moral relativism in his epic book, Scaling the Secular City, 243). In this book he argues that if relativism is true, then all choices are equally good. If all choices are equally good, then even intolerance toward other beliefs can be morally correct. Why then should anyone practice tolerance (Moreland)? Moral relativism is always about an individual's choice whether right or wrong. The individual determines what is wrong and what is right. Moral Relativism states that ethics are relative but moral absolutism teaches that ethics are not relative. The moral law is grounded in the very being of God. Moral relativism is based on an individual's decision but moral absolutes have their source outside of the individual. Moral relativism justifies every action of an individual or a group of people. However, had some people not stood up against the moral evil in slavery and abolished the practice, what would have been the story of the United States today? Therefore, an individual, people, group, or a nation that espouses and promotes moral relativism is heading for a dangerous end. The economic tsunami that we are experiencing in the United States today can be linked to the danger of moral relativism. When a scholar is groomed in one of the Ivy- league and prestigious Universities of our land and his heart has not been transformed by the supernatural power of the Gospel of Christ, we have in our hands an intellectual whose mind is full of knowledge, but whose heart is left untouched and unregenerate. There is no telling what greed and evil such a person can cleverly orchestrate at the expense of the majority of people. History is replete with the demise of empires, nations, and individuals whose practice of moral relativism led to their disintegration and demise. A typical example is the Roman Empire. If there are no moral absolutes, why have some CEOs of Companies and Corporations in the United States been incarcerated for misappropriation of corporate funds? Why then do we spend millions of dollars tracking drug cartels and drug traffickers and pushers? If moral absolutes have no place in post-modernism why do we spend billions of dollars fighting global terrorists who want to make this world an unsafe place to live? The United States should learn from history and not repeat it. We repeat unsavory history at our own peril. -Kennedy Ahenkora Adarkwa, PhD. (Adjunct Professor of Evangelism)

I apologize for confusing you with accidentally implying that Hitler was a Christian. That was not true. His motives were not Godly at all. Once again, do not let one define the group. The Word of God does not support murder in any way. The scriptures that you have quoted were either during Babylonia, which was the political punishment for homosexuality, or it was a warning from God. The Psalmist is in exile and had probably witnessed the atrocities committed against his people, babies included. In the revenge-style that was so common at the time, he wishes the same upon his enemy as a description of their utter destruction. Nowhere does it say that God approves of the Psalmist"s request or that he fulfilled it. Just because it is recorded that the Psalmist wrote the imprecation, doesn"t mean it was approved by God. Throughout the Bible, as early as the Flood, we see God's anger at times. That does not take away from his unconditional love in any way. It would show later generations like our very own, which has grown quite similar to Noah's age just like the Bible predicted, the eternal consequences of our actions if we do not repent and give our lives to our lord and savior, Jesus Christ. God has allowed men the authority over women without any harm involved.

When you were analyzing Genesis, you were trying to mix science and creationism, and the reason we are debating is because they are two different interpretations on our origins. So of course they are not going to match up with completely with one another.

Apparently I am failing to see how your explanation of infinite universes is taking care of the issue of the orderly processes of the Earth's rotation, orbit, and moon's orbit, as well as its perfect distance from the sun and the moon's distance from Earth. In the last round, I will list all of the fulfilled biblical prophecies, and even introduce you to Noah's Ark National Park in the mountains of Ararat.


-On eternal gods
I believe you hinted at the impossibility of an infinite in reality.
If god is something, which is to say god is in reality, then he can't be infinite.
If thought precedes actions. god must have thought to create the universe.
However all thoughts are the result of prior thoughts and experiences so god would logically have to have a first thought/ experience.
If we agree the impossibility of the infinite is a logical absolute, then god is subject to it, otherwise the notion becomes incoherent. This is why theologians say god can only do that which is logically possible.
However, once again you have completely missed the point. We don't need a first cause, it only complicates things, while adding no real explanation to anything.
Once again a supernatural cause is impossible to know, because it can't be investigated by any known methodology.
Not only can science not know, nothing can know EVER. A supernatural cause acting the natural world becomes synonymous with a natural cause. You would never be able to differentiate.
Also you have also completely missed my point about models. I am NOT saying the proposed models are right; I am saying there are self contained models in which no god is needed.

-Quantum mechanic
NO physicist is skeptical of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics has had profound implications on a lot of fields.
Every experiment done in quantum mechanics has confirmed quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is reliable.

Historical atheists:
I would first like to say, the reason there are more atheists now is because we know more and atheism no longer gets you killed or thrown in jail.
There is many many more
Also if Newton was born today I bet he would be an atheist. Just like if Hawking was born in the 18th century I bet he'd be christian.

"So, can you name one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution that proves a change of kinds (not species)?"
I have never heard in a biology lecture or read in a textbook anything about a "kind". What is that?
I will have to provide the evidence next round because I have no idea what you are talking about.
That is the problem when you use religion to argue biology, we end up using vocabulary that has no real meaning or place.
Also I would like to say even if by some miracle evolution turn out to be false, that is no way proof or evidence of god.

My opponent has offered no real objection to consequentialism.
Acts that are good have good consequences.
What's a good consequence?
One that increases well being.
The objective right action is the one that increases the most well being.
However there may be many ways to achieve this. Even through seemingly immoral acts.
Killing someone is immoral, however killing one evil person to save a million is moral.
On moral absolutism, you can NOT kill someone to save a million lives.
Drugs and terrorism is another debate.
However if someone is acting to combat those thing, he or she is most likely doing so because he/she thinks well being will be improved.
Even Kant's categorical imperative is based on consequences.

Pro's commentary on the verses only further demonstrates my point.
He seems to agree we are not doing these things, like stoning homosexuals killing children because they are harmful and no good comes from them.
However if we read the bible literally as a life guide that's what we would be doing.
Once again things that we recognize as nonsense we cease to take seriously.

My opponent seems to agree science is against creationism.
Which more so demonstrates my point that the bible is unreliable.
Once again we read non fiction as non fiction.
The bible is obviously fiction because the evidence is against it and we reinterpret as allegorical or metaphorical.

"Apparently I am failing to see how your explanation of infinite universes is taking care of the issue of the orderly processes of the Earth's rotation, orbit, and moon's orbit, as well as its perfect distance from the sun and the moon's distance from Earth."

The orderly processes are the life permitting parameters I am referring to.
In an infinite multiverse you would expect some universes to have these parameters.

"If I asked you to make me a rose from scratch, you would probably say that you could not do it, but you say that it is not intelligently designed. You would have to start with the seed. If a human being can not create a rose, even though you claim it is not intelligently designed, then how could the universe form a rose through natural processes?"

I am not quite sure what you are asking me here. How does the universe form a rose?
Gas collapsed and compressed into clumps the size of a million suns (that's starting small for something the size of the universe). These clumps then merged to build galaxies.
one hundred billion years ago the Earth, the Sun, and all the planets of the Solar System were nothing but a cloud of cold dust particles swirling through empty space. Gradually, these particles were attracted to each other and came together to form a huge spinning disk. As it spun, the disk separated into rings and the furious motion made the particles white-hot. The center of the disk became the sun, and the particles in the outer rings turned into large fiery balls of gas and molten-liquid that cooled and condensed to take on solid form. Four or five billion years ago, they turned into the planets that we know today as Earth, Mars, Venus, and the outer planets.
The earth was incredibly hot in its early years and eventually in cooled into a primordial soup.which involved in the first organisms.
Yes life can sprout from non life.In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of DNA, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth.
During flowering four different types of floral organs need to be formed: sepals, which protect the inner organs; the frequently ornamental petals; stamens, which produce pollen and the carpels. This process is orchestrated by a large number of genes. Scientists have now found that a small molecule, a so-called micro RNA, is crucial for the control of floral organs identity. I think it follows we can get to flowers from micro RNA.
I'm sure my explanation will be insufficient to you. I don't think you want to know how; I think you want to know why.
Why is not a particularly meaningful question. Why presupposes purpose and their seems to be no observable universal purpose.

"I guess the word "consciousness" was not what I was trying to refer to. Humans and other animals have living souls. What part of the Big Bang and evolution would give us life? You are a special and unique living and breathing human being made in the image of God. You explained neurological processes in the last round, but I want to know how it was first initiated. Also, you gave me the process of emotions, but we will just leave that at satisfactory for now."

Once again I am not sure what you want. I gave you science's current explanation of consciousness and emotion.
Once again I think you are asking why.
What first initiates emotion? Experience.
How is it that primordial soup goes to consciousness?
Once again I don't know the exact mechanism by which matter creates consciousness.

Pro's arguments are one big argument from ignorance. He is basically saying: hey you scientists don't know therefor god.

I am sorry; I don't have sufficient time to talk about Jesus. We can have a separate Jesus debate.

1.Pro has not addressed the logical contradictions and incoherence that result from god's attributes.
2.Has offered no real refutation to the problem of evil.
3. Has not offered any reconciliation between eternal hell and a loving god.
4. Has not addressed some of the poor "designs".
5. Has not addressed my arguments from social science.
6. Has not offered any refutation to the multiverse or any of the self contained godless models I offered.
7. Has not demonstrated how to avoid the unavoidable infinite regression one encounters when using the design argument.
8. Has not reconciled quantum physics with the KCA
9 .Has not reconciled Occam's razor with the KCA.
10.Has not demonstrated the existence of souls/spirits.
11.Has offered no real objections or refutation s to consequentialism.
12. Has not provided any evidence for dualism
13.Has not demonstrated how any being exists outside of space time.
Debate Round No. 4


We are never going to agree on God's almighty power, (being able to do and withstand anything), because you subject him to human restrictions. God dwells in the highest heaven, as the Bible states, and it is simply not here. Heaven is not on the inside or the outside of any universe. In other words, we could not get there with a time-warping spaceship. God's existence will never fit in with scientists outlawing the supernatural. If I asked you who the most important person in your life was, and you told me who it was, and I say they do not exist, you would call me crazy because you would probably have a personal relationship with them. If you asked me the same question, I am going to say Jesus Christ because I do have a personal relationship with him, as well as all of the other 2.18 billion Christians in the world that have accepted him as their Lord and savior and allowed him to enter their heart.

Our God can definitely be loving, and still give us the choice that makes us happy of how we want to live. Without the choice, then everything is permissible and we would not have needed to be created. We are all human and we all sin consistently, Christian or non-Christian. Perfection is not a requirement, but allowing Jesus in your heart. As for people like Hitler and Osama Bin Laden, the Bible says our God is a God of justice, and it will be served, eternally. He is also a merciful God. You can stay a dangerous criminal all your life, and be on your death bed, and still enter the kingdom of heaven if you truly accept him as your Lord and savior, even 10 seconds before you pass. No sin is above another in God's eyes according to the Bible. A free gift of eternal salvation is offered from a God who came to Earth as a perfect human and died an innocent, gruesome, and torturous death for humanity. The knowledge of God is written on our hearts, as stated in Romans. All we have to do is bury it all under the sand, and Satan will continuously throw out evidence to support that everything came from nothing, or that we are just part of another universe in an infinite chain of universes.

Of all the atheists you listed, none of them were scientists. I researched all of the names from multiple sources. I found that the only ones listed that were actual scientists were Freud and Jung, and their field of study was not even in evolution or origins. Freud was a neurologist and Jung was a psychiatrist. The other nine on your list were philosophers. Stephen Hawking, who you seem to admire, once said, "...philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly in physics. As a result, scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." I am sure you can agree that something is proven through the scientific method. In other words, it has to be observable.

Therefore, I will now ask the same question again. Can you give me one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution that shows one animal changing into another kind of animal, such as a fish into a bird? I am not referring to one kind of animal changing into another species of that same kind of animal. The Biblical model is more observable because we know that God created one kind of animal, such as a canine, that would eventually make its individual species that have observable similarities. Watch Evolution vs. God on Youtube. This man interviewed science majoring students and multiple science professors with a few doctoral science degrees behind their name. Not one of them could give one piece of observable evidence of one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal. The appendix, coccyx bone, and fifth finger were brought up as being leftover evolutionary parts, but multiple atheist science websites have reported of the discovery where the appendix is vital to the immune system, the coccyx bone is a very important attachment for ligaments, tendons, and muscles that needed to be there all along, and koalas also have a fifth finger as well. Koalas are bears, not apes.

Here are some actual scientists (in concordance with Stephen Hawking's definition) that use(d) the scientific method without blind faith:

-Physicist "Isaac Newton" (Founded the Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation)
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion."
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
"Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things."

-Astronomer and Mathematician "Johannes Kepler" (Founded the Laws of Planetary Motion)
"However, before we come to [special] creation, which puts an end to all discussion: I think we should try everything else."

-Theoretical Physicist "Albert Einstein" (Theory of Relativity)
"Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy."
"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe..."

-Physicist and Astronomer "Galileo" (Father of Observational Astronomy)
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

-Naturalist "Charles Darwin" (Father of Evolution)
"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic."

-Physicist "Niels Bohr" (Atom's Bohr Model)
"The meaning of life consists in the fact that it makes no sense to say that life has no meaning."

-Microbiologist "Louis Pasteur (Father of Microbiology)
"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."
"I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity."

-Inventor and Engineer "Nikola Tesla" (Designed AC and Electrical Supply System)
"The gift of mental power comes from God..."
"My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists."
"Everyone should consider his body as a priceless gift from one whom he loves above all, a marvelous work of art, of indescribable beauty, and mystery beyond human conception..."

-Physicist "James Clerk Maxwell" (Electromagnetic Field)
"No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, or generation or destruction...Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing."

-Scientist "Michael Faraday" ("Father of Electromagnetism")
"...the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead,..."

-Inventor "Thomas Edison" (Phonograph/Camera/Light Bulb)
"I believe in the existence of a Supreme Intelligence pervading the Universe."

-Scientist and Inventor "Alexander Graham Bell" (Telephone)
"God has strewn our paths with wonders and we certainly should not go through Life with our eyes shut."

-Scientist "Gregor Mendel" (Father of Genetics)
"The victory of Christ gained us the kingdom of grace, the kingdom of heaven."

-Mathematician and Physicist "Blaise Pascal"
"There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus."

-Physicist "Ernest Rutherford" (Father of Nuclear Physics)
"Of all created comforts, God is the lender; you are the borrower, not the owner."

-Astronomer and Mathematician "Nicholaus Copernicus"
"To know the mighty works of degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance can't be more grateful than knowledge."

-Scientist "Francis Bacon" (Scientific Method)
"God has, in fact, written two books, not just one. Of course, we are all familiar with the first book he wrote, namely Scripture. But he has written a second book called creation."

-Chemist and Physicist "Robert Boyle" (Father of Chemistry)
"What an almightiness is eminently displayed in God's making out of nothing all things...constructing this immense fabric of the world, whose vastness is such, that even what may be proved of it, can scarcely be conceived..."

-Physicist "William Kelvin" (Father of Thermodynamics)
"The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism."

-Theoretical Physicist "Max Planck" (Quantum Theory)
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force...we must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind."

Here are a few of the many fulfilled biblical prophecies:

Daniel said the Messiah would begin his ministry 483 years after a decree to restore Jerusalem.
Micah said Bethlehem would be the Messiah's birthplace.
Isaiah said Cyrus would destroy Babylon and subdue Egypt.
Jeremiah said the exact time for Jerusalem's restoration.
Moses said the Jewish nation would be conquered twice for slavery, first by Babylonia (70 years), and then by a fourth world kingdom (Rome).
Jeremiah said Edom (Jordan), even though it was easily accessible, would become an uninhabited wasteland.
Joshua said one man would rebuild Jericho and his eldest son would die at the start and his youngest at the finish.
Elijah's departure was predicted by 50 prophets in 2 Kings.
Jahaziel said Jehoshaphat and a few would destroy a large, powerful army without even fighting.


On Human Restrictions: It is not only us atheists who say god is subject to the logical absolutes, most theologians and philosophers of religion also say god is subject to the logical absolutes. I am sure, even you would agree that god can't exist and not exist at the same time or that god could not make a rock so big that he couldn't lift it.

On Personal/Emotional Appeals: The most important person in my life is my grandmother, the difference between my grandmother and god is that I can demonstrate that my grandmother exists. There is over a billion Muslims , and over 900 million Hindus and they are also convinced of their gods. All religions can't be right but they can all be incorrect.

God/Justice/Morality: Your allusion to Dostoyevsky about permissibility is true. However it exactly demonstrates my point; people like justice so you would expect people to create a false justice paradigm to give the illusion of justice and to decrease bad actions. If one lives a life harming others then on one's death bed converts to Christianity, said person should not go to heaven. THIS IS CRAZY. It proves Christianity is not concerned with people being moral. I also find it terribly convenient that every horrific act is forgiven except not having faith in your god.

Satan And Presuppositions: "The knowledge of God is written on our hearts, as stated in Romans. All we have to do is bury it all under the sand, and Satan will continuously throw out evidence to support that everything came from nothing, or that we are just part of another universe in an infinite chain of universes." YOU ARE JOKING? If knowledge of god was written in my heart,I would believe. Science is not Satanic,we believe what ever the evidence and reason tells us and there is good reason and evidence for the multiverse.

Atheists: I did not know how far back you wanted me to go. Philosophy used to be the main academic field so you would expect most past atheists to be philosophers. Cosmology is a relatively new field, however almost all cosmologist are atheists. Also just because I like Hawkings, that does not mean I have to agree with him on everything.

Evolution: OK so you are using kind to mean family. Well this gets at the question of common ancestry because if life had a common ancestor then it would follow that all "kinds" came from this ancestor.

Birds and Dinosaurs: Birds-The evolution of birds from dinosaurs was first proposed in the late 1860s by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was a famous supporter of Darwin and his ideas. Evidence from fossils for the reptile-bird link came in 1861 with the discovery of the first nearly complete skeleton ofArchaeopteryx lithographicain Upper Jurassic limestones about 150 million years old near Solenhofen, Germany. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is clearly dinosaurian. It has a long bony tail, three claws on each wing, and a mouth full of teeth. However, this animal had one thing never before seen in a reptile - it had feathers, including feathers on the long bony tail. Huxley based his hypothesis of the relationship of birds to dinosaurs on his detailed study of the skeleton ofArchaeopteryx.
This seems to constitute the evolution from dinosaurs to birds. I would pressume these are two differen't kinds, I'm sorry if I got the definition of kind wrong, considering it's not a real term.

-Ubiquitous Genetic Similarity:
Human beings share approximately 96% of genes with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
-Universal Genetic Code:
Every cell on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the petals of flowers, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is quite convincing evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

On Your Weird Argument From Theists Scientist: Just because there were a lot of theist scientist once upon a time, does not mean that theism is true. Tesla and Einstien seemed to be deist/ pantheist. If we are just going by stats, in modern times athiesm wins by a long shot. 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in a god.

Failed Prophecy: I don't find my opponent's argument from prophecy convincing; there are failed prophecies too, but I'm sure he would just push them to the side.
Destruction of Tyre
For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach. With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water. And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard. And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

In this block of text God states quite blatantly that Nebuchadnezzar would completely sack and destroy the city of Tyre. However, the events given in this passage never did come to pass. After a 13 year siege, Nebuchadnezzar withdrew his forces. Despite being conquered and razed by Alexander the Great 240 years later,Tyre still exists.

Egyptians will speak the dead language of Canaan

In Isiah 19:18 Isaiah says Egyptians will learn the tongue of Canaanites

Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.

Not only has the Canaanite language never been spoken by Egyptians, but it is now an extinct language. There is the very unlikely possibility Isaiah was referring to Hebrew, which is technically a Canaanite language. However, Hebrew was also never adopted by the Egyptians. And according to the context of this passage, Isaiah is specifically referring to Pagan Egypt, which ceased to exist in the 4th century. (See Above) So even if Egyptians started speaking Hebrew at this very moment, it would still be an inaccurate prediction. Also, it's worth noting that Isaiah believes the Egyptians will convert to Mosaic Judaism (a dead religion) and start offering sacrifices to the LORD shortly after this incident, (Isaiah 19:21) a practice no longer done by Jews since the Temple was destroyed and priesthood lost.

Ezekiel 28:24-26 predicts that Israel will live in peace with its neighbors:

No longer will the people of Israel have malicious neighbors who are painful briers and sharp thorns. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign LORD. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I gather the people of Israel from the nations where they have been scattered, I will show myself holy among them in the sight of the nations. Then they will live in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. They will live there in safety and will build houses and plant vineyards; they will live in safety when I inflict punishment on all their neighbors who maligned them. Then they will know that I am the LORD their God. (NIV)

A consistent aspect of history is that Israel has never gotten along with its neighbors. (Or, if you prefer, that its neighbors have never gotten along with it.) There's still hope that Israel and the neighbourhood will be peaceful one day, but it requires everyone in the region to stop "inflicting punishment" on each other.

In Daniel 8:14, it claims that:

For two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.

William Miller, a Baptist preacher, predicted and preached the imminent return of Jesus Christ to the earth. He first assumed that the cleansing of the sanctuary represented purification of the Earth by fire at Christ's Second Coming. Then, using an interpretive principle known as the "day-year principle", Miller, along with others, interpreted a prophetic day to read not as a 24-hour period, but rather as a calendar year. Miller stated: "My principles in brief, are, that Jesus Christ will come again to this earth, cleanse, purify, and take possession of the same, with all the saints, sometime between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844." Nothing happened, aside from a lot of confused Christians suddenly noticing Matthew 24:36 and starting up Seventh-day Adventism.

Pro has not adressed my conclusion points in my prior round. He has primarily appealed to the bible and anecdotal evidence and opinion polls/ quotes(which would be okay execpt he didn't offer evidence.


Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by tburd 2 years ago
Thank you for participating and helping me learn your beliefs as well.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
Good debate my friend :)
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
No one is voting :(
Posted by tburd 2 years ago
Round 5 Sources:

Posted by tburd 2 years ago
For my last round, I forgot a source to cite. I apologize

Posted by CarlSaganT3 2 years ago
Well the points are, in the realm of logic and science,irrefutable. If it is not within the realm of science or logic than it doesn't fit into my views. Atheist wins unless theist provides evidence after all these thousands of years. No disrespect intended.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
If he can refute them :)
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
I am excited for this debate. I am a devout Christian, so we know who I am rooting for. The Con seems to be intelligent, and based on the 5 points the Con is making, I cant wait to see how the Pro will refute them. Good Luck!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: pro didn't really manage to rebut con's scientific evidence
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: The title of the debate was "God is not dead", but the actual resolution that seemed to be being debated was "God exists", so I'll go ahead and judge the debate based on that... also, BOP seemed to be shared, though it was not explicitly stated. Pro brought up many arguments for the existence of God including intelligent design, cosmological arguments, objective morality, and consciousness, all of which were refuted by Con's science-based rebuttals. Meanwhile, Pro barely even addressed Con's arguments pointing out the logical contradictions in Pro's definition of God. Clear Con win.