The Instigator
boii77
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Castaway
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is the God of the bible real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 480 times Debate No: 97824
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

boii77

Pro

I will be proving that the God of the bible is real and also defending the bible. Now your job is to make to make me look like a fool, in other words try to stump me and disprove the fact that the God of the bible is real

RULES: What ever arguments that you use should be backed up with evidence of any sort. The evidence that you use though cannot only be based off of science. This means that you must also find real life evidence or even use pieces from the bible and the same applies to me, I cannot only use bible based evidence.
Next both sides MUST ask the other questions and when asked a question you cannot ignore it you must answer, also if you do not like the other persons answer then try to disprove there answer.

LETS BEGIN!!
Castaway

Con

Before I begin, I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate and wish them the best of luck.

Firstly, I would like to point out the resounding lack of evidence there is for the God of the Bible. Across the board, we have seen absolutely no evidence for the God of the Bible existing, despite the fact that there should be resounding evidence. If the God of the Bible was real, we would expect this to have a massive amount of evidence, for claims so grand as to claim that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent creator deserve a massive amount of evidence to prove the claim's validity. We do not see this. My opponent has yet to show any evidence for such a being to exist, but I'm sure they'll try, and I'm eager to hear it. If my opponent can prove God, or even just tip the scales towards him existing, that would be monumental. The entirety of science has yet to reveal any such evidence. Despite God having performed many, many miracles to impress the people of old, now that we can record and evaluate such things, they seem to have surprisingly stopped entirely. It's almost as if they never really happened.

Second, I would like to point out the massive logical dilemmas that the God of the Bible causes. For a being to be both eternal and unrivaled in its age, as God is, and to be both omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, this creates a massive logical flaw. At one point before the creation of anything, there was only God, and hence, no evil. Yet, now we do have evil. Hence, we know that God must have, indirectly or directly, been the cause of this evil, either through creating evil, or creating a creation that would in turn create evil. As God is all-knowing, he would've known that the creation he was creating would create evil, thus making him responsible as he knowingly took the action that caused evil to come about. As we know an all-good or benevolent creature cannot cause evil, we have an issue. Either there is no evil, or there is no God. Tell me, which is more likely?

Third, I'd like to point out the massive flaws and inconsistencies in the Bible that call into question all of its claims. To name just a scarce few examples, Leviticus 11:6 claims that hares chew the cud. This is blatantly false as hares actually have another way to digest plant matter as we can see in source 1, which is eating their own feces. Apologies to those reading who just realized they're not cute. In Joshua 10:13, God stops the sun in the sky. As we know the Earth revolves around the sun, this means he stopped the Earth rotating. One, no other culture reported this taking place at this time, but that's really irrelevant as we can see according to Source 2, if the Earth suddenly stopped moving, we would be launched abruptly off the globe and we would've all been wiped out. Psalm 75:3 claims the Earth stands on pillars. It doesn't. 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 and Isiah 45:18 all claim the Earth is fixed in position, which we now know to be false. Daniel 4:10-11 implies that the world is flat as all of it can be seen from a high tree, impossible on a sphere. I'd say that'll do enough to call into question all of the Bible's claims.

Source 1: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
Source 2: http://www.universetoday.com...
Debate Round No. 1
boii77

Pro

I would first also want to thank you my opponent for accepting with a respectful attitude hopefully we continue with this respectful attitude.

So first I would like to just say something so you brought up the story in Joshua when God stopped the sun in the sky you cannot say that the story is false because it defies laws in science because if God is real (which I believe) then i'm pretty sure he would be capable of stopping the sun in the sky and keeping earth perfectly fine after all he is omnipotent. Therefore that point can't really be used against God in fact what it does is glorify God even more and that was the intent for this story in the bible. Also when you say about psalms 75:3 suggesting the world is held by pillars u first have to remember that this is all a song made by King David. Meaning that u can't just completely take it the way it says also this was a long time ago when everyone thought the world was flat.

Now you made an interesting quote saying that there is no evidence about Gods existence. The problem now with what your saying is that many have tried to find evidence and i will too but whether or not you will accept is not up to me. I find that often the problem isn't the fact that there isn't evidence but the problem is whether or not u will accept the evidence with an open heart.

Next up lets get to some evidence about Gods existence. when scientist said that the big bang was an explosion they based it on the fact that they can trace back radiation which was there since the beginning. Now in the bible the first thing god said in the creation was let there be light. Now what is visible light, well visible light is electromagnetic radiation (source 1). So could it be possible that God could have been the cause? If your answer is no then i'd like to ask you a question. What do you believe started this universe? Also there are many things that science cannot explain too for example the complexity of our DNA, or why everything in our universe is so complex and almost everything works and serves a purpose, one cannot simply say that this was all a coincidence for example the moon and the earth if the moon travelled slower it would fall and if it travelled faster it leave earths orbit. These are all things that don't just happen by coincidence. Which is why I also want to know your say on this.

http://www.astronomynotes.com...
Castaway

Con

To begin, my opponent fails entirely to even address much of my argument. My entire second point is not even responded to, let alone refuted, and thus still stands. He fails to refute the bible claiming that the world is flat, he fails to refute those claiming that the Earth is fixed in position and he fails to refuse that that's clearly mistaken about rabbit biology. He makes a fair point as to the Earth stopping, but doesn't show any explanation why no other culture had noted such a massive event such as the sun pausing. He only manages to refute one of many points made as part of that larger point. Thus, the third point still stands.

The only point my opponent fully engages with is my first, about their being no evidence. There's a source, although I'm not really sure why. The point seems to imply that the God of the Bible was the first mover. Is it possible? I suppose in the same way all things are possible. As an Atheist, I'd usually try approach this with several theories like the Big Crunch or the idea of "before" the big bang or complicated stuff, but here, there's really no need, seeing as this debate isn't on deism, it's on the existence of the God of the Bible. So, the Big Crunch could be right. It could've been done by Aten, or Brahma, or the Great Rabbit or Rod or any number of deities. I don't know for certain, but that isn't an argument for the God of the Bible anymore than you not knowing what's in my garden is an argument for me owning unicorns in my garden. My opponent is arguing for the God of the Bible, and this point is not only not evidence, it doesn't even suggest the biblical God. My opponent has interchanged arguments for deities with one for the God of the Bible, which doesn't work. Hence, my firs point still stands.
Debate Round No. 2
boii77

Pro

So my opponents wants me to answer his point so I will. Though my opponent hasn't given any regard to my evidence and completely shifts the topic onto him owning unicorns in his garden, which is pretty cool but off topic.

So your point was that if God knows all then he should have known that Lucifer was going to rebel against him. Now saying this I suppose you are trying to say God isn't all knowing but now you must put in mind that the bible says many times that all is intended for Gods will, therefore Satan was a part of Gods will so saying that God created Lucifer doesn't disprove that God exists at all. Now you (my opponent) still haven't showed any regard for my evidence which goes right back to what I said in the beginning about how you probably wouldn't even regard the evidence.

Another piece of evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible are bible prophecies for example Mathew 24:6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Now the reason why I brought this is to show that the bible can be reliable and this one prophecy cannot be denied you even probably know that lately everyone has been talking about wars and even World War 3. Now what this shows is that Jesus' message was in fact real and we know the part of Jesus' message is that there is a God. Now you can't say that I was only using the bible to prove God because really I am connecting it with our current world. So don't try and use that argument about me supporting the bible with the bible when really i'm not.
Castaway

Con

Once again, my opponent fails to address all my points. My third point on the mistakes in the Bible goes unaddressed entirely. He does attempt to refute my second and first point, so I'll go into them.

My point about the unicorns in the garden is in no way off-topic. It was a metaphor to explain why your point was invalid. You've asked a question about what caused the universe. I've said I don't know. It could've been the god Brahma, or the Great Rabbit, or the Big Crunch, or a number of things. What evidence do you have to suggest that the answer to this issue is the God of the Bible is any more likely than any of these solutions? If you have none, this point doesn't stand.

To begin, no my point was not that God isn't all knowing. Quite the opposite, in fact. Evil exists in the world . At one point it did not, as their was only God. God is all-knowing as my opponent agrees, so God would know the consequences of every action he commits. God created beings that created sin, thus God is responsible for sin, just like if I built a robot knowing it would murder someone, I would be responsible for that murder. We have a contradiction, though. God cannot be responsible for evil, as he is benevolent and all-good. Thus, something in this doesn't work out. Either there is no evil, or there is no God. As we can see there is evil, there cannot be God.

My opponent then attempts to put forth evidence for God. The thing is, the prophecy really isn't one. Through human history, there have been wars. To predict that there will be wars in the future is like predicting that it will rain in the future. It takes no foresight to do so, and is most definitely not proof of God even if the modern era was as violent as ever. But it's not. As Source 3 shows, we're at an all time low on violence and war, despite having a much larger population. The percentages are even lower. So that only would this prophecy proof nothing, as Jesus has predicted something that still to this day hasn't occurred and it only seems in the opposition's mind likely to happen soon, the prophecy is false.

To sum up, my point on the resounding lack of evidence for the God of the Bible still stands, as none has been provided that is not easily disproven. My point on the logical fallacy of an omniscient, omnipotent and infinite creator in a world with evil still stands. My point showing the Bible as highly inaccurate and putting all of its claims into questions still stands. My opponent has shown no evidence that's not easily disproven. WIth this in mind, it's clear to us that the God of the Bible is not real.

Source 3: http://www.hsrgroup.org...
Debate Round No. 3
boii77

Pro

So my opponent states that since God made Lucifer then the fact that God knows all means that he knew Lucifer was going to rebel, then that means that he is responsible for all evil in this world. Now the thing about this argument which makes it invalid is the fact that we do not know everything like God. Therefore we do not know what would have happened if God never made Lucifer we do not know whether someone else would have rebelled. Whether or not it was destined for one to rebel against God we don't know, so you cannot use this argument against me unless you do know what would have happened if Lucifer was never created. So this argument was built off of opinion and unconfirmed basis. Also when God created man he gave us a will of our own. We choose whether to follow Gods will or our own will so if we create sin then it is on us for following our own will not on God. For example you have a choice in will God isn't going to be the one that forces you to choose. In fact if you think about it God doesn't even punish you when you choose not to follow his will but it is this world that will punish you.

Still my opponent hasn't even regarded or tried to refute my first piece of evidence, instead he only refuted my second piece of evidence talking about the prophecies. So if your reading this (my opponent) then please stop ignoring my first piece of evidence. which was in my comment for round 2. The one I said before talking about the bible prophecies. Now I think that you also may have misread the prophecy that I gave you. You mistook what I sent and assumed I meant that violence is at an all time high. Really what I said and what the prophecy said is that there will be RUMORS of wars, which is true lately there have been many rumors of wars. I don't even watch YouTube videos about God and or wars yet whenever I go on YouTube my recommended list always has at least one video talking about a World War III coming soon. So you have to read carefully I was talking about RUMORS of wars, NOT the rising of violence. So if you would like to understand more about this prophecy, then click on the link that will be on the bottom.

Now please until you give an answer to my first point I also want to hear evidence about the God of the Bible not being real because you still haven't given any good evidence suggesting that the God of the Bible isn't real. So this time I want you to search deep for any type of evidence for why God isn't real. Because you haven't given any evidence to disprove the fact that the God of the bible doesn't exist.

https://gotquestions.org...
Castaway

Con

My opponent speaks of how it could've been destined that evil would come about. What is this destiny he speaks of? If this destiny can subvert God's will, he's not omnipotent, so that doesn't work. No, the basis is not unconfirmed to any degree. We know that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, so it's not like there could be ANY consequences to this that God good not create. No, my opponent has no real argument to make, so he throws in a wishy washy statement about how we don't know. We do know that God is omnipotent and omniscient, so yes, we know there's no destiny that could've subverted his wishes.

My opponent then talks about free will. He seems to think that God doesn't punish us when you choose not to follow his will. He does. He does something that's literally infinitely worse than everything mankind has done to each other combined. He sends them to hell, where they will burn forever. For an infinite amount of time. The suffering mankind has caused is practically nil in regard to this due to the nature of infinity.

Also, my opponent talks about free will. Let's discuss this in regards to Adam and Eve. God created two people who sinned. They were imperfect. This again is another fallacy, seeing as a perfect being cannot create something that's imperfect, so this is another fallacy that comes about with God.

Putting that aside, we know that Adam and Eve did sin. They did this due to their prideful, or sinful, or curious, or defiant, or whatever aspect nature. This is a nature given to them by God. When God created them, he knew they would sin. Thus, them sinning was part of the plan, as he didn't improve the design. So you're not getting rid of the God causing evil problem, you're just pushing it one level down, and my point still stands.

My opponent's questioning of whether or not I'll accept evidence is not evidence itself. Unless I'm misreading it and he's referring to his point on how God knew that Lucifer was going to rebel, which again, wasn't evidence. It was proving my point, because yes, that would've meant he causes evil through creating something he knew would cause evil. If I'm still missing the supposed evidence you put forward, please put it forward.

There have always been rumors of war. There were rumors of war before and after the Bible. Saying that their will be rumors of war isn't a prophecy of any magnitude, and certainly doesn't prove God's existence. I can make prophecies as easily as this. For instance, I prophecy that the sun will set and the moon will rise tonight. Is that a prophecy? Yes, by definition it is. Now, does me making such an easy prophecy give my argument more weight? No, because its simple to predict.

I've shown plenty of evidence. First is the pro's resounding lack of evidence for his side, which would require some pretty grand evidence with how big a claim he's making. Second is the now two logical dilemmas I've pointed out that, since we know evil exists and man is not perfect, show that this God cannot exist, and third are all the massive flaws in the Bible that call into question all of the Bible's claims. These points have stood throughout the debate and grown, while my opponent's few points have not. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
boii77

Pro

Hold on a second, WHAT?!!! my opponent hasn't stated any good evidence first of all he never got back to me about my first piece of evidence. So I'm really hoping that he gets to it in his next attempt to prove that the God of the bible isn't real.

"I've shown plenty of evidence. First is the pros resounding lack of evidence for his side, which would require some pretty grand evidence with how big a claim he's making."

Are you serious come on simply saying that I lack evidence, isn't a form of evidence. Also I find it kind of ironic how my opponent claims that I lack evidence meanwhile he completely ignored my first piece of evidence, which was about the beginning of the Bible when God said let there be light. So once again I don't care how you try to refute my statement or how much evidence you use to refute it but at least don't ignore it. The fact that it's been three rounds and my opponent still has been trying to ignore this statement is just sad and proves that he doesn't know how to refute it. Next he also completely ignored my other piece of evidence about DNA and how such complexity cannot just be a coincidence but must come from type of creator. Once again, three rounds and this point has still been ignored up till now. Hopefully my opponent can at least try to talk about this instead of ignoring and then somehow trying to say that I lack evidence and therefore that's his/her evidence.

" that would've meant he causes evil through creating something he knew would cause evil. If I'm still missing the supposed evidence you put forward, please put it forward."

Bible Scripture :Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

Now so you are saying that God did create darkness which according to the Bible you are correct there is nothing I can say to disprove this because the Bible has already confirmed that indeed you are correct that God did create darkness, as well he created light. Your only point was that God created darkness therefore he doesn't exist. Now I first of all just want to say even if God did did create darkness and light how that mean that he doesn't exist simply because he created darkness that makes no sense. He created darkness but he also gave us the strength to overcome it. For example in the Bible when God gave Satan permission to torment Job did God not give Job the power to overcome it? Yes, God did which is why Job did overcome it. In the bible clearly it has stated that God has given us the power to overcome the darkness therefore whether or not one does is up to the person as an individual. My opponent bases off all of his statements on opinion and barely uses fact, or any Bible verses to disprove my claim. Merely saying that God created the darkness doesn't disprove the existence of God being real. This just come to show that my opponent has no good evidence to prove that the God of the Bible doesn't exist.

" God created two people who sinned. They were imperfect. This again is another fallacy, seeing as a perfect being cannot create something that's imperfect, so this is another fallacy that comes about with God."

Now my opponent tries to add on to his argument by saying that a perfect being cannot create something that is imperfect. Now lets see the definition of perfect is having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be. No where in this definition does it state that a perfect being cannot create an imperfect being. Once again my opponent bases his claim off of assumption. He assumes that God wanted to create us as completely perfect beings. No where does it say that God intended to make us absolutely perfect. I'm going to once again refer to the Bible scripture I used before Isaiah 45:7. In this Bible scripture it clearly is saying that God had a reason for the cause of darkness and that he purposely had a reason for making them imperfect, now his reasoning I may not know 100%. I would like to point out maybe my opponent misread the topic of this debate it seems as if my opponent isn't trying to disprove the existence of God, it seems as if my opponent is just saying that the Bible is wrong which isn't what this debate is about. But don't worry maybe we can have a debate about that too sometime but currently that's not the topic.

"He does something that's literally infinitely worse than everything mankind has done to each other combined. He sends them to hell, where they will burn forever. For an infinite amount of time. "

Now this whole topic about Hell is a large topic but I'll still go into it. Now keep in mind we are still the ones making the choices about our lives. So before we talk about Hell we must first talk about Heaven. Now Heaven is the very Thrown of God itself. God sits on nothing but the purest of all things he sits on only what is holy and accepts what is Holy. This is were our choice comes in if you choose to live an unholy and filthy life then you cannot reach the requirements of heaven. Now if you cannot enter heaven and your death what that means is that Satan can snatch you right there and then you would be in hell. So it isn't God throwing you in Hell no it is Satan that decides to bring you to hell because there is no where else to go. This is why I said that it isn't God punishing you in fact it is you not being able to enter God's Kingdom (Heaven). Now sorry about that whole Bible lesson.

"I've shown plenty of evidence. First is the pros resounding lack of evidence for his side, which would require some pretty grand evidence with how big a claim he's making. Second is the now two logical dilemmas I've pointed out that, since we know evil exists and man is not perfect, show that this God cannot exist, and third are all the massive flaws in the Bible that call into question all of the Bible's claims."

Now after writing all of this lets review my opponents pieces of "evidence". First he says that I lack evidence and therefore that's his evidence. This makes no sense especially since he's been completely ignoring most of my evidence throughout this whole debate which I talked about in my earlier paragraphs. Next my opponent then says for his second piece of evidence he is using the "logical dilemmas" that he pointed out. Now throughout this round I have pointed out all of these "logical dilemmas" which all are based off of opinion as I have said are either off the topic and or have already been refuted. Next my opponent says that there third piece of evidence is the "massive flaws of the Bible". Now he hasn't stated any of these "massive flaws," and the ones that my opponent did mention I already refuted them, with biblical evidence to refute the so called "massive flaws". Then my opponent tries to use the existence of evil to say God doesn't exist which makes absolutely no sense since the bible already says that God purposely created darkness, and evil and that Satan was no accident but indeed intended for Gods will for example if God didn't intend for Satan he wouldn't have allowed him back in the book of Job when the angels met.

I do believe that I have shown evidence even if my opponent decides to ignore them. The first piece of evidence that I showed was about the scientists being able to link back a lot of Microwave Radiation back to the beginning of time and connecting this to Genesis when God was creating this world (if you would like to know more about this I explained it in Round 2 which my opponent ignored). Then the second piece of evidence that I spoke about (in which my opponent also ignored) was about how the level of complexity in some of the things of this universe for example our DNA point to a creator because these are all things that don't just happen but are caused and or created (if you would like to hear more about this point go to my comment for round 2). Third my last piece of evidence would be the teachings of Christ I think that many of the teachings of Christ as a whole help to describe God and held us to understand more, now know your definitely going to try and refute this statement which is why I am going to say right now that this isn't one of my main pieces of evidence my main piece of evidence my main pieces of evidence that you should focus on are the first 2 because those are the 2 pieces of evidence that my opponent still hasn't gotten to.

Before I end this comment I just first want to thank my opponent for accepting and actually being able to actually stump me at times and really make me think. But I was actually serious though when I said that we should have another debate about the teachings of the bible and whether it makes sense so make sure to look out for that. Next I would like to thank anyone who actually took the time to read this debate. This was a good debate so I'd like to once again thank my opponent.
Castaway

Con

To begin, I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I'd absolutely love to debate you again in the future. Thank you.

Alright, let's get started. My opponent's first point is that his lack of evidence is not evidence for God. Yes, we live in a world where this is the case. There's no evidence against Thor, although the resounding lack of evidence suggests to us that he doesn't exist. The same is true for God.

Secondly, he makes a connection between the big bang and the lines "let there be light". According to modern theories, the Big Bang would've been the beginning of the universe. Yes in the lines before "Let there be light, it says God created the heavens and the Earth. The Earth did not exist before the big bang, thus the connection falls apart. If anything, this is another slight against the Bible, and shows its claims shouldn't be trusted.

Third, he point out the complexity of DNA, which I did mention above in reference to all the other Gods. He never makes a case for why the creator of DNA has to be the God of the Bible, rather than the Great Hare of Native American religions. Because he hasn't done this, this point doesn't stand, as this isn't evidence for the God of the Bible anymore than it's evidence for the Great Hare or any other potential creator God.

Then, he talks about how God created evil and darkness, but gives man the strength to overcome it. This is again clearly not true, as not everyone has the strength to overcome it. God has made some men too weak to overcome it and not given them the strength. As well as this, this still fails the contradiction. A benevolent and completely good being can't create evil.

My opponent also claims the Bible's falseness is irrelevant and not what the debate is about, as the debate's about the existence of God. Actually, if you reread the title, it isn't. The debate is about the God of the Bible. Thus, the bible is completely relevant, and if there's massive flaws in it, that calls into question all the claims made into it, including the God it tells us about.

Next is my second fallacy, which my opponent argues that he doesn't know God's reasoning, but he must have it because the Bible says so. As I've already shown many examples that prove the Bible isn't a good source, this means nothing. We have two competing theories here, either one of them work. God created man knowing that he would sin, which shows he purposefully created beings that would sin, thus creating sin, which is a fallacy he is all good. Alternatively, God didn't know they'd sin, in which case he's not omniscient, which he must be. In regards to a perfect being, as the definition says, they must have all desired elements. Thus, for a being to want to create sin, a negative thing, he cannot be perfect. These two things are massive fallacies that disprove God entirely.

Next, my opponent attempts to push the guilt of hell off God. It's clear to us this is wrong, as God is setting the requirements for heaven that some people cannot reach, and then having Satan, a being he created knowing he would throw people into hell throw them into the hell he created. So God created everything involved in this scenario, knowing it would play out the way it would where countless people are sent to infinite torture. Is a father who his creations punished for being imperfect a good one? No, for he is the creator of them, so it's his fault for his creations imperfections. Thus, he's not benevolent, creating another fallacy.

Next, my opponent ignores the flaws I've actually stated twice before. "1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 and Isiah 45:18 all claim the Earth is fixed in position, which we now know to be false. Daniel 4:10-11 implies that the world is flat as all of it can be seen from a high tree, impossible on a sphere. I'd say that'll do enough to call into question all of the Bible's claims." This shows

As we've shown, the big bang connection fails as he created the Earth beforehand in scripture, but that clearly didn't happen in the big bang. I mentioned the point on DNA already and earlier in this debate, and how it doesn't prove the God of the Bible. The last piece of evidence is the teachings of Christ, but never elaborates on how that proves anything, so it isn't evidence.

With my opponents evidence gone, I'll point out this. For such an extraordinary claim, we've seen no real evidence that hasn't been easily refused. We've seen multiple logical fallacies that show God as described by the Bible can't exist. We've also shown that the Bible is extremely flawed, calling it and its claims into question. So what are we left with? A flawed book of mistakes and nonsense making claims about a God with no evidence that can't logically exist. I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, does that exist?

I'd like to thank whatever audience there is, and my opponent for creating the debate. It was a pleasure. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by imjustsomeopinion 1 year ago
imjustsomeopinion
<The evidence that you use though cannot only be based off of science. This means that you must also find real life evidence>

in other words: " don't use the one thing that has consistently provided us answers". science IS real life evidence. science has lead us to practically everything we know about the world we live in. If you are going to outlaw using science you might as well not even debate because nothing you say can be taken seriously.
Posted by boii77 1 year ago
boii77
HeyTheist you cannot say that God has hidden himself if you do not even believe in God. If you don't even know who God is then you cannot know whether or not he has hidden himself. You cannot find someone that you do not know. For example I do not actually know you so if I walked out of my home saying "i'm gonna go look for HeyTheist" how can I know whether or not the first the person I walk by is you or whether you've lived right next to me all this time. Really I wouldn't know same way with you, you don't even know God therefore how can you say whether he has hidden himself from you or whether he's been in front of you the whole time and you just didn't know.
Posted by eeks 1 year ago
eeks
Question: How did you learn how to read the bible?
Bible doesn't teach you language, or reading, so your environment is going to significantly impact your point of view or interpretation of God as well as the bible. Languages themselves have differences so even the same thing would already be interpreted differently in another language. So before you can read the bible you must first learn a language and then learn how to read it, there instant inconsistency there. How can the God of the bible be real if there is absolutely no reason to believe in such a claim? The bible alone cannot be the answer simply because without the initial knowledge of reading the book cannot even relay a message. And even when it does relay a message it will always be interpreted different because of differences in languages and their interpretation. Either way, the bible itself cannot be real because without REAL knowledge it cannot even be useful. "Real" knowledge being practical application of truth that produces real results, as in, evident and clear, without acceptance of mystery as a valid answer for the unknown. God is mysterious in his way! No, he's not, when your child is bleeding you take them to ER not church. No mystery there, you get real results.
Posted by Castaway 1 year ago
Castaway
Technically you are invisible when unobserved, aren't you?
Posted by HeyTheist 1 year ago
HeyTheist
the problem with belief is that, just believing something to be true does not mean it is. i could believe i can fly, but if i jumped off a building fully believing i would soar would not stop me plummeting to the ground. the problem with god is that it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, meaning it cannot be dis-proven. with exactly the same logic i could claim to be invisible when I'm not being observed, it would be impossible to prove wrong because any attempt at refutation would involve observation. Believing in a God that has since the advent of this book hidden himself is as illogical as believing in me being invisible when unobserved.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Pardon me I meant to say pro's defence.......
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
The biggest failing of con defence is his arrogant and ignorant certainty. Claiming to know something no one can know and calling it faith does not make it true. The Christian god has to many descriptive failings and limiting attributes to be a perfect god.
The bible does not meet the criteria for a credible source. And how is it read, literally or allegorically or metaphorically or figuratively or contextually????????????????????
The main "benefit" of allegorizing the bible is the ability to remove real or apparent contradictions between Scriptures and current beliefs.
You do not use or need knowledge, truth or evidence for gods.
The only thing needed for gods to be real is belief.
If you don't have belief then gods are not real. Humans have invented thousands of gods over thousands of years and all have become myths when belief in them stopped. Your god is next.
The more you know the less you believe...........................
Posted by HeyTheist 1 year ago
HeyTheist
One would be hard pressed to find any outside evidence for the biblical God other than the bible, since the only reason we supposedly know the bible is true is because the bible being divinely inspired says so. This is a circular argument and a logical fallacy. Therefore whether the biblical God exists or not one cannot prove or disprove him, making belief entirely Faith based and illogical.
Posted by fred70 1 year ago
fred70
The Bible's not true? NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why? God why? Ahhhhhh!
God why??? Ugh! N0!!!
I can't......I can't.......I won't live any more!
Argh!
No votes have been placed for this debate.