The Instigator
TheLogic
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ubermensch-Tsoa
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Is 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 3 votes the winner is...
Ubermensch-Tsoa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 740 times Debate No: 92938
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (37)
Votes (3)

 

TheLogic

Con

First, let's talk about the obvious inconsistency: time. Christians claim that the earth was created only a few thousand years ago. Science has proven this to be false. For one, there is carbon dating. Carbon dating is a process used to determine the relative age in certain objects. This has told us countless times that there were objects on the earth BILLIONS of years ago. In fact just a few years ago in 2014, a crystal was found that is 4.4 billion years old. Explain that.
Ubermensch-Tsoa

Pro

Ah yes, don"t you hate inconsistencies? With that I accept this challenge.
I would like to explain my position for it is seems to be rather more difficult that simply stating I believe the bible is real. Moreover, I feel that there is not enough evidence to refute "the bible", which in theory would also reject the idea of Christianity. With that it should be understand I will assume that since my opponent rejects the authenticity of the bible but they also reject the idea of Christianity. Since the opponent rejects this form of religion due to the "inconsistencies", they also reject all religions based off of religious text from a "high power". Which leads me to believe that the opponent is an atheist or some sort of sophist all of which also have some sort of "inconsistency", yet the opponent continues to think in this manner highlighting that consistencies isn"t really necessary to perceive religious text as "real".

1)My opponent claims that the bible has many inconsistencies and shouldn"t be trusted. Yet, she uses science to try to discredit the bible. Do we not understand that science is merely based off of what is currently known and that it will change once something else Is understood? Science will always be inconsistent because it is continuously evolving. IE: The world is flat; the sun rotates the earth; there is only one universe; and so forth.

Expanding on inconsistencies, the theory of understanding what is happening around is rather inconsistent. The speed of light and even the force of gravity has been noted as changing consistently yet formulas remain the same. Rather inconsistent?

The string theory requires some sort of energy for it to actually exist but before the string theory nothing exists. Therefore, there was no energy to initiate this string theory; rather inconsistent or better put illogical, right?

2)Time is an invention of man " there is no proof or correlating evidence that God"s day is the same as human days and only assumed. Prove that God"s time is the same as mans? We cannot.

3)Since time cannot be compared between our concept and God"s; we come to a subjective position since neither side could be treated as fact. The claim of inconsistencies is primarily subjective and therefor dismissed and the opponent has the burden of proof for the claim at hand.

"Give me one miracle and I"ll explain the rest".
Debate Round No. 1
TheLogic

Con

TheLogic forfeited this round.
Ubermensch-Tsoa

Pro

You cannot say, you ought not believe in something (Bible) due to its inconsistencies, when the resources used to prove the inconsistencies is inconsistent itself (science).
Debate Round No. 2
TheLogic

Con

TheLogic forfeited this round.
Ubermensch-Tsoa

Pro

3.14 swayed
Debate Round No. 3
TheLogic

Con

TheLogic forfeited this round.
Ubermensch-Tsoa

Pro

Rich Text
Debate Round No. 4
TheLogic

Con

TheLogic forfeited this round.
Ubermensch-Tsoa

Pro

Opponent has forfeited.
Debate Round No. 5
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Theguy1789// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Votes on full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter votes for the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 8 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
TheLogic;
Thanks to a recent debate I know there are 33,820 Christian denominations. The Bible upholds NONE, there are no denominations in the entirety of the Biblical text. That having been said there in fact are denominations which though slightly off retain the blessings of God, These are specifically all Churches, who profess that Jesus Christ is Lord, was put to death upon a CROSS, raised from the dead on the 3rd Day, and sits at the right hand of the Father. Upon Christ return to heaven, He sent the comforter (The Holy Spirit) that would indwell all believers teaching them the word of God, with Christ as our example.
That the Trinity is true and contains God, The Father, God The Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Why is there 33,820 then?

It is written: 1 Timothy 4:1
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

Romans 10:8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"d that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, "Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame."
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 8 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
TheLogic;
Non believing people believe that people who subscribe to the Bible do so by faith instead of fact, this of course is in great error. The Reality of God is self evident, but as proof of His reality He cannot be found lest He calls you. This confuses many, but it needn't. When a person genuinely wants and desires to know Gods existence God is aware of it. Consequently He sets into motion situations and circumstances that end in bringing you together with Him. The meeting is one of profound emotion. Once you've met Him your life changes, abruptly.

The Bible is the word of God, it is inerrant, it was God breathed and inspired. The inconsistencies you speak of are inconsistencies from the point of view of men. There are no contradictions in its entire wording.

Secondly- The bible gives proof of Gods existence in that it cannot now or ever be understood by mortal men without the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit which defines, explains and provides clarification of it's pages. As It was God inspired it must be God taught which is precisely what happens with the believers. Those who learn that interpretation comes from God alone, people are quickened in the spirit and grow at much greater speed and efficiency than those who still listen to pastors, books, radio personalities. Scripture is adamant that you require no one to teach you as God shall undertake the burden.
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
You have nothing to offer but your own immaturity.
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
P.S

I like how you have to resort to juvenile insults when you can't make any logical points.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 8 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Pssst, just ignore him , he'll go away!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 8 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
poor thing, play nice Hieme
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
"Oh you know I proved that Science has been wrong all along on this evolution thing"

You proved jack sh*t. You made straw men and lied. Nothing else.

"and even thought the cartoon kid here can't find a single picture of any animal ever created by evolutionary scientist, he STILL refuse to call evolution a lie?"

Because that's not what evolution is about.

"I put the textbook definition of Evolution down and he immediately accused ME of not knowing WHAT evolution is"

I agreed with the definition. You disagreed with it.
You are a liar.

".... go figure. Course he started doin that moon walkin thing when I told him it was the dictionary term, and I had just forgot to put down the reference, he went all into spasms an such, how he was not saying my definition was wrong?"

I agreed with it. You disagreed with it.
You are a liar.

"Seemed adamant about it. I dunno, seems to me that when a person says .... you don't even know what evolution even is"

You know jack sh*t about evolution. Your arguments prove that time and time again.

".... that's challenging what I had said ... which WAS the dictionaries definition of evolution."

I agreed with it. You disagreed with it.
You are a liar.
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
FoC, I thought your Bible was against lying?
If so, why do you make a habit of it?
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
"We must remove the human."

To completely get it out, that is true. But via multiple tests done by multiple teams, we can easily get the human error to a minimum.

"Uh, yes it is."

No it isn't.
Whether or not you believe in something is whether or not you are convinced of it. Conviction is not a choice. I never chose to be an atheist, it just so happened that I was not convinced of any deities existing.
How exactly does one choose to believe something?

""Would you care to elaborate on that and explain how I'm ignorant of science in general?""

""What do you mean?""
This was a failure on your part to communicate the message, hence I was asking what you meant.

"Pro, what do you mean the speed of light changes?"
Because lack of knowledge on a single fact means I'm ignorant of science in general? I'll give you the definition of "in general", since from this claim, you don't seem to have it with you right now.
"1. usually; mainly.

2. as a whole."
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 7 months ago
Ragnar
TheLogicUbermensch-TsoaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
TheLogicUbermensch-TsoaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by Theguy1789 7 months ago
Theguy1789
TheLogicUbermensch-TsoaTied
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: Forfeiture.