The Instigator
FritzStammberger
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

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 5 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,620 times Debate No: 29580
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

FritzStammberger

Pro

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I accept. I contend that instead in the beginning there was nothing, and THEN (after the beginning) God created the heavens and the earth.
Debate Round No. 1
FritzStammberger

Pro

You can't have a beginning that is nothing. That is just self contradictory.

beginning denotes time.

time is interlaced with matter and space.

In the beginning(time) God created the heaven(space) and the earth(matter).

Well would you look at that! imagine, all that in the very first verse of the bible. Amazing!
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

There are two problems with the interpretation of scripture here:

1) It's vague whether it means it literally or not. Yes, we may argue that it is a unovical interpretation of the scripture, but that is a minority opinion among major scholars and theologians and trained priests, the majority opting for either an analogous or symbolic interpretation of the Bible.

2) My opponent has the wrong Holy Book. Clearly, zoroastrianism is the correct religion.


The third problem is also the largest, unsurprisingly. Zoroastrianism is the correct religion. There are a number of reasons for this:

1) "Then, out of Infinite Time, He produced forth Time which is the Lord of duration -- there is someone who calls it Finite Time -- out of Time which is the Lord of duration, Impassability arose, that is, the substance of Ohrmazd will not pass away; out of Impassability, the Progress of prosperity became manifest, -- that is, the, unhappiness owing to the Devs may not come; out of the Progress of prosperity, spiritual Intransformability became manifest, the Spirit owing to whom the substance of Ohrmazd will not alter from that which was produced, at the original creation; out of spiritual Intransformability, the complete Will of the creatures of material existence became manifest, the righteous creation of the creatures and conformability."[1] Amazing!

The Yasna clearly states that there was nothingness (or infinite Time) and from that came substance. As Zoroastrianism is the correct religion, that means there was nothing then God (Ahura Mazda) created the world!

2) Zoroastrianism agrees with all the facts we know of the world.

a) "A child is said to be formed, and a soul added to its body, after a woman has been pregnant for four months and ten days"[2]. Also the third trimester, when the majority of people not clouded by false religion agree the beginning of life starts.

b) "How is existence brought about? Just as one substance is evolved out of another according to its own laws and in the finite time (fixed for it.)"[3] Hence evolution.

c) Zoroastrianism predicts its own lack of success in old times, and for 3000 years will be unsuccessful. However, after that period, after another 3000 years will become more successful and then eventually the triumphant religion, without ever dying out. Zoroastrianism has existed for almost 3000 years, and its numbers still exist, yet it is unsuccessful, proof of its validity.

d) "It is the desire of Ahura Mazda from people is this: 'Know me', for he knows: 'If they know me, everyone will follow me'. The desire of Angra Mainyu is this: 'Do not know me', for he knows: 'If they know me no one will follow me'." Aghura Mazda (good) and Angra Mainyu (evil) battle for supremacy in this world. Angra Mainyu is successful to begin with (the first 3000 years). However, as we develop we become less violently anarchic (states develop and become stronger and less crimes come about, which is true on a large scale), and we develop reason (evident by the promotion of reason and success of new technology), we become a better society and more inclined towards good.

Moreover, all philosophical arguments point to Zoroastrianism. The arguments for God conclude Ahura Mazda, Hume's teleological argument concludes panentheism. The problem of evil concludes Ahura Mazda is not omnipotent. By contrast, Hume's teleological argument and the problem of evil does not conclude the Christian God. Moreover, none of the properties of the Christian God are inconsistent, while Ahura Mazda is limited in his omnipotence and the god system is henotheistic, which makes more sense.

3) Hume's teleological argument is not specifically an argument from Hume, but its inspiration can be taken from Hume. Firstly, we accept the teleological argument, that the universe's design entails a designer. However, we get this conclusion analogously: thus, for the argument to remain valid, we must continue the analogy as far as is reasonable.

We know that the bigger something is, the more work is put into the design. However, this only goes so far. If the design is massive, like we can point to the Olympic Ceremony, we need an incredibly skilled designer to design it. However, even this only goes so far as well. When it comes to something as big as the Olympics, we neeeded many designers to design it. As such, it is only logical to conclude that something as large as the universe had many designers. The pentateuch denies this, but Yasna accepts this logical conclusion.

4) Problem of Evil is quite simple: An omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent deity, can intervene in the world if there is evil, and should intervene in the world, and therefore there would not be evil. However, the fact that there is evil goes against the possibility of this God. As there is no deity in zoroastrianism which falls for this problem, this justifies zoroastrianism.

5) Inconsistent properties in God exist on a large scale. For example, God is omnipotent. This omnipotence is summed up in the Bible verse "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”[4] and "For nothing is impossible with God". He rhetorically asks "Is anything too hard for me?" implying there is nothing that he cannot do. However, we know for example God cannot lie. This may seem minor, but clearly there are many situations where lying is advantageous to everyone (giving a silly example: if you lie to a man about which button will end the world, and tell him it's the one that saves the world, it is moral to save the world). Moreover, it creates the contradictions such as "Can you make a rock too heavy to lift", as God should be able to lift it, yet cannot lift it. We can claim he cannot break logic, but nothing is impossible without God. We can claim the object does not exist, but God can make it exist, for nothing is impossible without God - and its existence in concept means it has the capacity to exist at the least.

6) Finally, the Bible contradicts, makes things up, and is wrong on many issues. It contradicts itself, saying firstly that: "Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”[7] but later saying "But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.”[8] This is a clear contradiction. The Bible also makes things up, like the ahistorical events of the census of Quirinius, as well as the Jewish exodus from Egypt. Finally, the Bible says things that are scientifically wrong. For example: "Yet these may you eat of every flying creeping thing that goes on all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap with on the earth"[9]. There are no flying things that go on all fours. Moreover, the Bible says that the moon projects is own light: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."[10]

I think that is enough, so with that I'll pass the round over to my opponent to conclude.


1 - Yasna 44
2 - Antequil II, 563
3 - Denkard 4
4 - Matthew 19:26
5 - Luke 1:37
6 - Jeremiah 32:27
7 - Genesis 32:30
8 - Exodus 33:20
9 - Leviticus 11:21
10 - Genesis 1:16
Debate Round No. 2
FritzStammberger

Pro

"Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."(1)

"The gods that ye worship live not, they understand not, they see not. They are the works of your hands. They can help neither you nor themselves. Wherefore, the only true and good God, having pity on you, has sent me unto you to warn you of the trouble which shall come upon you unless ye put away your false gods."(2)

"let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole."This is the "stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.""Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."(3)

1 Mathew 16:23
2 Story of Roland
3 Acts 4

If you are genuinely seeking God you will recognize Him in Jesus Christ otherwise you are disingenuously looking for answers. May the Lord God have mercy on your soul and lead you to himself through Jesus Christ amen.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

"So conscience for the sinner distorts the truth of the upright, but (his) soul is in agony at the judgment of the Chinvat Bridge, having strayed by his own deeds and tongue from the Path of Righteousness."

My opponent hasn't rebutted any of my cases from reason, but instead pleads ignorance in the form of his false god. This is specifically pointed out in Zoroastrianism: firstly that those brought up in falsehood cannot develop into reason easily, and secondly that those who do not aim towards reason will go down false paths.

My opponent in short has done nothing to prove he is right but post false scripture. I have provided strong reason to believe in zoroastrianism, and as such strong reason to vote against the resolution. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Nope.
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
And Zoroastrianism says you'll be saved by using your reason.
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
Ephesians 2:8,9 explains, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."" All the promises and good intentions that a person offers to God, will be rendered void as having any merit in attaining salvation.

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."" (John 3:36).
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
it seems to me you are supposing time before matter
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
well there can't really be emptiness because there will still be God
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
No, I am saying that there was a nothingess (i.e. emptiness) then God filled it. Where does "God was created" come from there?
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
Con, are you saying that God was created?
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
What's the beginning?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
FritzStammbergerStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof, but Con made the better argument. Con's argument seems to have been good enough that Pro couldn't deal with it, because Pro did not respond with argument, but instead turned to preaching. Persuasion and conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
FritzStammbergerStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Because Fritz needs to stop arguing from the UNRELIABLE authority of the bible. He does this every debate he gets into, and so I cannot in good conscience give him conduct; this is part of a pattern that establishes bad conduct. Second, such arguments are not convincing, and PRO did nothing to argue for his authority, whereas CON did. Finally sources to CON for providing SOME support for his own source.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
FritzStammbergerStephen_HawkinsTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Just ridiculous.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
FritzStammbergerStephen_HawkinsTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: We had a battle of Holy books. Stephen_Hawkings presented far more evidence in favor of the accuracy of Zoroastrianism than Pro did in favor of his supposed God. I thus must side with Zoroastrianism's account of what happened in the beginning, and will likely be converting to Zoroastrianism in short order!
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
FritzStammbergerStephen_HawkinsTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: lol