The Instigator
Bible2000
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Skepticalone
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

It is more reasonable to believe in the Christian God than not to

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Skepticalone
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,830 times Debate No: 72178
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (58)
Votes (2)

 

Bible2000

Pro

First round is acceptance only. Voters please explain your decision with detail. Thank you.
Skepticalone

Con

I accept! I look forward to a lively debate, and good luck to you, sir!
Debate Round No. 1
Bible2000

Pro

Thank you for accepting, Skepticalone. As I have mentioned in a previous debate similar to this one, in the 19th century the beginning of scientific inquiry resulted in the questioning of established systems, including religion. Scholars tried to apply methods of psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. with hope of discovering a clue concerning how or why religion began. This resulted in a burst of theories, some of which may seem plausible to some of you in the audience and to Skepticalone. Nevertheless, none of these ideas really stands out more than the other in credibility, and why is that? Because, these theories lack proof and were merely the result of an investigator's imagination, soon to be replaced by the next one that came along. Similarly, astronomers before the 16th century came up with many interesting ideas about the movement of the planets, but no real progress was made until scientists, and the Catholic church, accepted the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Reexamining the premise led to success. These investigators not only wanted to explain religion, they wanted to explain it away. They argued that man has invented God. But what if we reexamine this premise?

Among the legends many religions in ancient times had in common is the flood. The Bible says that rebel angels materialized and “went taking wives for themselves.” This unnatural interbreeding resulted in the violent Nephilim. Their unnacceptable conduct affected the world to the point that Jehovah said:“‘I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground [...] because I do regret that I have made them.’ But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah.” The Bible continues with the specific steps Noah had to take to save himself, his family, and a variety of animal kinds, from the Flood. With this in mind, let's consider the Assyro-Babylonian mythology and its references to a flood.

The well-known Akkadian myth called the Epic of Gilgamesh is the story of the exploits of Gilgamesh, described as being two-thirds god and one-third man. A version of the epic says, “In Uruk he built walls, a great rampart, and the temple of blessed Eanna for the god of the firmament Anu, and for Ishtar the goddess of love [...], our lady of love and war.” Gilgamesh was not a very pleasant creature to have around. The inhabitants of Uruk complained to the gods, “His lust leaves no virgin to her lover, neither the warrior’s daughter nor the wife of the noble.” In response to the complaints, the goddess Aruru created Enkidu to be the human rival of Gilgamesh. But instead, they became friends. Eventually, Enkidu dies and Gilgamesh is shattered, and fears death. Gilgamesh finds Utnapishtim, who tells him instructions given to him concerning the flood: “Tear down (this) house, build a ship! Give up possessions, seek thou life. [...] Aboard the ship take thou the seed of all living things.” This is very similar to the Bible's reference to the Nephilim, Noah, and the flood, isn't it?

And an even earlier account of the flood is the Sumerian myth that presents, "Ziusudra, the counterpart of the biblical Noah, who is described as a pious, a god-fearing king, constantly on the lookout for divine revelations in dreams or incantations.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament). That same source says that this myth, "offers the closest and most striking parallel to biblical material as yet uncovered in Sumerian literature."

Notice that those who believed in these legends and myths lived far away from each other geographically. Their traditions and culture were different. And yet, when it comes to religion, they believed in very similar ideas. This is evidence that, like the languages of the world, all religions have a common source, a truth revealed by God and altered by religion. This is not surprising. After all, religion is connected to thinking, and thinking is connected to man’s ability to use language. This truth has been preserved in the book that God reveals his power in through fulfilled prophecies and science discovered at a later date, the Bible.

Dear people of the audience, I will now show how God reveals his power in the Bible. And the only valid way to do this is to actually show you, from the Bible, how examples of God's power. So please, let's not make comments like, "The Bible is not a reliable source". Thank you.

The Bible is a book of accurate history. Let’s first consider 1 Chronicles chapter 29, verses 26 and 27. It says, “Thus David the son of Jesse reigned over all Israel, and the length of his reign over Israel was 40 years. In Hebron he reigned for 7 years, and in Jerusalem he reigned for 33 years.” At one time, claimed that King David never existed. There was little proof outside the Bible that he was real. Then, in 1993, a group of archaeologists revealed a very ancient stone with a word on it that is translated “House of David.” Another person from the Bible whose existence was questioned by some scholars was Pontius Pilate, a governor who ruled in Jesus’ day. He is mentioned at Luke chapter 3, verse 1. Then, approximately 50 years ago, a stone was found in the Middle East with his name plainly imprinted on it.

The Bible also predicted important historical events centuries before they happened. Here is one example:

Daniel 8:7-8: 7And I saw it coming into close touch with the ram, and it began showing bitterness toward it, and it proceeded to strike down the ram and to break its two horns, and there proved to be no power in the ram to stand before it. So it threw it to the earth and trampled it down, and the ram proved to have no deliverer out of its hand. 8 And the male of the goats, for its part, put on great airs to an extreme; but as soon as it became mighty, the great horn was broken, and there proceeded to come up conspicuously four instead of it, toward the four winds of the heavens.

Daniel 8:20-22: 20The ram that you saw possessing the two horns [stands for] the kings of Me′di·a and Persia. 21 And the hairy he-goat [stands for] the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it [stands for] the first king. 22 And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from [his] nation that will stand up, but not with his power.

These verses predicted the fall of Persia by Alexander Magnus, and that four of his generals would take his place after his death over 200 years before these things happened!

With its historical accuracy and demonstration of God’s power through fulfilled prophecies, is there really valid reasons to reject the Bible? Not at all. In fact, let’s take a look at other things that make the Bible extraordinary.

The Bible is internally consistent.

The first book of the Bible tells us how mankind’s problems began. The last book shows that the whole earth will become a paradise, or garden. All the harmonious material in the Bible covers thousands of years of history and has to do, in some way, with the unfolding of God’s purpose. This is extraordinary, when you consider the Bible was written in three different continents, three different languages, with over 40 writers, in a period of 1,610 years.

The Bible has been most attacked book in history, and now is most distributed.

In 168 B.C.E., Syrian King Antiochus IV tried to seek out the inspired books of the Law to burn them. Roman Emperor Diocletian’s decree to demolish the meeting places of the Christians and to burn their Scriptures was issued in 303 C.E. The destruction continued for a decade. After the 11th century, popes led the efforts to suppress the spread of Bible knowledge, opposing the translation of the Scriptures into languages of the common people. It is extraordinary that despite these attacks from Satan, we still have the Bible today. It’s even more extraordinary that it is the most distributed book in the world available to people all around the globe in over 500 languages!

The Bible is in harmony with all of our established knowledge and confirms most of it.

The problem with the scientific method is that it is limited by imperfect human observations. For instance, science knows land animals came after marine animals, so it says evolution. The Bible also says land animals came after marine animals, because he created them after marine animals, no evolution required. Science also sees the universe expanding, so it says Big Bang. The Bible also mentions the expansion of the universe many times, but it says “God stretches the heavens”. Who knows, maybe he did use an explosion. What we do know is that the Bible confirms this and many other scientific facts such as the water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6.), which were not fully understood until well over 1,000 years later.

When we follow the Bible, our actions are successful.

Some Bible principles cope with work habits, family life, and relationships with others. The Bible’s principles apply to all individuals, and its counsel is always beneficial. The wisdom found within the Bible is summarized by God’s words through the prophet Isaiah: “I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself.” (Isaiah 48:17).

More evidence

Jesus had the opportunity to be king, but he preferred to suffer and die for a lie? I doubt it. Then there is the hundreds of witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus, many of whom were still alive when Paul (a witness himself) announced this and others became Christians after witnessing that event. And before his death, Jesus did many miracles, and this is a fact that even non-Christian sources do not deny (although they say Jesus got the power from demons).

Conclusion

With all these reasonable reasons to believe in God, it would be unreasonable to live life as if God didn’t exist when such life has everything to gain and nothing to lose. This is why...

It is more reasonable to believe in the Christian God than not to.

Thank you. I eagerly await Skepticalone's response.




Skepticalone

Con

Thank you, Bible2000!

Guilty or not guilty?


For the sake of argument, let us pretend we have the authority and ability to prosecute YHWH for the murders of the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (with exception to Lot and his family), the first born children in Egypt as well as Pharaoh and his soldiers at the red sea (associated with the Exodus), and all of humanity (except for Noah and family) in the Flood. What would we need? We would need evidence to prove he did these things before we could call him guilty, right?

What kind of evidence would the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah leave behind? First off, we would expect contemporary writings about the destruction of two cities. In other words, eyewitnesses who tell us about this destruction and what they saw. There are none. The Bible tells us these cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone.

Genesis 19: 24

Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven,

Brimstone is another name for sulfur, and it is quite easy to spot due to its yellow color. So is there evidence for the existence of cities destroyed in this manner? No. Archeologists have been searching for these cities for almost a hundred years and have found no trace of any cities destroyed with brimstone. We’re striking out here – no evidence.


We have two other stories - we can surely find evidence in one of those! How about we move on to the Exodus? We would expect to find Egyptian records mentioning the death of a pharaoh or the death of every first born in the land. There are none. We would expect to find a lot of evidence of 600,000 people living in the desert for 40 years, but again there is no evidence. In fact archeologists have given up on searching for evidence of such a large group of people ever roaming the Sinai desert.

“The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit""[5]


That leaves us will the Flood which is said to have occurred 4000-5000 years ago. If the flood occurred, what kind of evidence would we expect to find? Well, there would be massive amount of evidence. We would expect to find a relatively recent fossil layer which included modern animals (zebras, lions, tigers, wolves, giraffes, etc.) and modern humans. This fossil layer should be worldwide. In addition to this we, should expect to find a worldwide layer of pebbles, boulders, and sludge moved about by the flood. What do we find? Nothing like this – there is no fossil layer with 100,000’s (or even 10,000’s or 1,000’s) of modern fossils, and there is no sludge layer. So again, we have struck out.

If the Christian god were on trial for these crimes – we would have to acquit him since there is no evidence by which to prove his guilt. What about the Christian god? Can we prove he exists by these stories in the Bible? Nope. Three major stories with no evidence they ever happened. Now I’m sure Pro will say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that is true *except* when there is a reasonable expectation to find evidence. We expect to find evidence from S&G, from the Exodus, and most especially from the flood, but we do not. God was directly involved in each of these stories. If there stories are false, then it casts serious doubt on the Christian god who is said to have participated in them. Given this lack of evidence for YHWH in general and lack of evidence for the stories he is said to have been involved – I submit it is more reasonable to disbelieve.

Common source for flood myths?

In the commonalities of some flood myths, my opponent has given us nothing more than pure speculation as ‘evidence’ of the Christian god. The truth of the matter is that, sure, some of the flood stories are similar, in that, there was a flood most of the time. If you want to cherry pick the flood myths to find those that are similar to the Biblical version, that is doable, but it is not intellectually honest and the similarities only go so far. Most of the flood stories do not end up with a family of 8 surviving, some have a brother and sister as the lone survivors and repopulaters of the world, and some have no survivors. Some are global floods like the Biblical version, and some are local floods, and some are narrowly averted floods. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of flood myths, so similarities in a few is not evidence of the Christian god. [1] [2]

The Bible is historical?

I have no problem conceding there are parts of the Bible that are historical. However, that is not an argument for the Christian god. The fact that real places or real people are mentioned in the Bible does not mean that it is incontrovertible evidence for YHWH. I could sit down and write a totally fictitious story set in WWII and talk of Winston Churchill and General Patton, but the historical accuracy would not make my fiction true. Basically, the historicity of the Bible is irrelevant to the claim of the existence of “God”. This is not a reasonable point for belief in YHWH.

Prophecy!

No argument for the Christian god would be complete without prophecy. This is one argument that can be quite compelling if the audience is uniformed. Let us cover what a valid prophecy should do to be accepted as authentic:

1. It must actually be a prophecy. Not a documentation of events that is misinterpreted as a prophecy after a similar event occurs later.

2. It must be written before the events that it predicts.

3. The predicted events must actually occur.

4. The prediction must be both falsifiable and verifiable.

5. It must not be overly vague.

6. It must not predict a likely event.

7. It must not be self-fulfilling. [3]

That being said, when did the events described in Daniel occur? Alexander the great defeated Persia in approximately 331BC. I don’t think Pro will disagree with this. When was the Book of Daniel written? The scholarly consensus holds it was written around the year ~165 BC – some two hundred years after the event. Thus, we should call it historical rather than prophetical.

The Bible is internally consistent

The Bible being ‘internally consistent’ is due to men choosing the books of the canon up until the 4the century AD. This is the work of men, and not the work of the Christian god. If Pro, would like to argue God inspired them, he is entitled to that, but without evidence it is a hollow claim. Overall, this claim has nothing to do with reasons to believe in the Christian god.

The Bible is the most attacked book in history?

If the Qu’ran were the most attacked book in history and then the most distributed, would you change religions? This is more a testament to the fickle nature of humans rather than the power of any god. This is not a reasonable argument.

The Bible and science

Generally, when someone says science and the Bible are complimentary they are watering down either science or the Bible. Since Pro has mentioned the creation account, and he believes it is literal, we will go there first. The Bible states marine animals came first, then birds, then the land animals. This is not in accord with fossil records or science in general. Birds came after land animals. [3]

I believe Pro is reading into the text a bit when he says “God stretches the heavens” refers to the Big Bang. However, it is not surprising that some things may be right, but let’s not draw a circle around it and call it a “bull eye”. What about times when the Bible is wrong? Genesis 30:37-42 talks of Jacob peeling bark off if sticks and placing them in view of copulating animals so the offspring would be striped, speckled, and spotted. This is simply not how genetics works, and it is much more plausible to be the work of ancient ignorance rather than the work of an all-knowing god.

The Bible as a guide

I will agree there is some good stuff in the Bible, but there is some really bad stuff too. This is another case of cherry picking the data. In the Old Testament, it is easy to find horrible accounts (genocide, infanticide, slavery, etc.), but even in the words of Jesus we can find problematic messages such as, “Turn the other cheek”. This seems noble, but in actuality following this notion will only subject an individual to the mercy of bullies and thugs. What about, “judge not lest you be judged”? Again, it sounds good, but it is difficult to hire a new employee without judging them. Overall, any benefit I get from a book is not an argument for divinity of any kind.

More evidence’?

Pro states, “Jesus died for a lie? […] I doubt it.” (paraphrased) This is an argument from incredulity. Whether or not Pro believes it is possible is not a logical argument either way. Bible2000 talks of the hundreds of witnesses, but in actuality we have one man *saying* there were hundreds of witnesses, and that is not the same thing. As far as Paul is concerned, he heard a voice on the road to Damascus– is that being an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus? If the account were true and we could witness it, then we would probably think Paul had some sort of seizure. I don’t say that to be malicious. Even the people who were with him only saw a flash (which could be explained by any number of natural events) and they obviously did not understand the event as Paul did. As for Jesus and the miracles, I know Pro’s extra-Biblical source exists, but I cannot find it. I suspect it is not contemporary to Jesus. In other words, the source likely got it from word of mouth rather than by seeing it first-hand. I’ll leave that for Pro to sort out.

Back to you, Pro!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.talkorigins.org...

[3] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Bible2000

Pro

Is Jehovah Guilty of Murder?

No. Jehovah God can do as He wishes, although His wishes are constrained by His character, so He can't wish something that is immoral or inconsistent with His character. And, really, there is nothing immoral about the Giver of Life taking away the life that He gave in the first place as a sentence for the detestable things wicked people do.

Why did Jehovah Destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and is There Evidence?

Ezekiel 16:49, 50 -
"Look! This was the error of Sod′om your sister: She and her daughters were proud and had an abundance of food and carefree tranquillity; yet they did not support the afflicted and the poor. They remained haughty and carried on detestable practices in my sight, so I found it necessary to remove them."

Genesis 19 records that two angels disguised as men visited Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and insisted that they stayed at his house, so they went with him to his house where Lot made a feast for them, and they ate. The chapter then informs us, "Before they could lie down to sleep, the men of the city—the men of Sod′om from boy to old man, all of them—surrounded the house in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: 'Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may have sex with them.'" The angels then blinded all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urged Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the Wrath Jehovah was about to deliver. As you can see, Jehovah had more than enough reason to destroy these wicked people. But, is there evidence He did? Yes, there is:

"The five cities of the plain have been located and the evidence is staggering. For the first time in modern history we have found round balls of brimstone, or nearly pure sulfur, embedded in an ashen area near the Dead Sea, which show clear signs of having once been ancient building structures!"

Source: http://www.arkdiscovery.com...;

Why did Jehovah send the ten Plagues, and is There Evidence for the Exodus?

Jehovah sent Moses to free the his people, many which were children and elderly people, from the oppresive slavery of the Egyptians. But the stubborn Pharaoh refused to free them, which is why God sent the ten plagues. Is there extra-biblical evidence for this? We have the Ipuwer Papyrus, "an ancient document that provides a possible independent record of the ten plagues in Egypt".

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org...


And, surely, if approximately two million Israelites traveled across the Sinai wilderness on their way to Canaan, there should be evidence, and there is:

"From 1972-1982 the Ben-Gurion University (in Israel) conducted an extensive archaeological survey of the northern Sinai area. They documented 284 sites in northern Sinai where pottery shards and other remains of ancient occupation were found. These sites were arranged in groups with larger sites in the center and smaller sites on the outer edges of the group. They found that the larger center sites were 'base sites' where central activities (such as buying and selling) occurred, that the medium-size sites were family living areas, and the small outer sites were encampments for shepherds. They found that the people who lived at these sites were nomadic, wandering from place to place. They said 'In most of the sites there is no evidence of solid building, and it looks as if the inhabitants lived in booths, tents, or lean-tos.' Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D., showed back in 1995 that these encampment sites were made by the Israelites early in the Exodus. They reveal, in fact, the first three stops along the route of the Exodus: Succoth, Etham, and Pi-hahiroth. These Sinai sites fit the Biblical account very well."

Source: http://www.biblicalchronologist.org...

Why did Jehovah wipe out humanity with a Flood, and is There Evidence?

"We don't have all the explanations as to how the evidence came to be that way, and it may be that in the future we will discover some human fossils. However, there is also much about the fossil record that the evolutionists have a hard time explaining. On the other hand, we should also realize that we don't have all the answers either [...]. Even though God has left us with evidence for creation and the Flood, the Bible still says that without faith it is impossible to please and believe Him (Hebrews 11:6). Because we weren't there at the time of the Flood we cannot scientifically prove exactly what happened, so there will always be aspects that will involve our faith. However, it is not blind faith. As we have investigated the evidence, we have seen nothing to contradict what the Bible says about a world Flood. We can be satisfied that there are reasonable explanations, consistent with Scripture, for the seeming lack of human fossils in Flood rocks."

Source: http://www.christiananswers.net...;

Although we don't have indisputable human fossils that we could say belong to the pre-flood world, the Flood was possible. The water came from above of an expanse Jehovah made in the second "day" as a division between the waters below and the waters above. And, apparently, that water that covered the tallest mountains is still right here, on Earth. You can read about that with more detail in this debate I am having with AtheistPerson about the flood(http://www.debate.org...). Also, we don't lack evidence for the flood. Such a cataclysmic Flood which washed the whole world of that time would never be forgotten by the survivor. They would talk about it to their children, and their children's children. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says,

"Flood stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though most common on the Asian mainland and the islands immediately south of it and on the North American continent, they have been found on all the continents. Totals of the number of stories known run as high as about 270 . . . The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood and the spread of the human race from one locale and even from one family. Though the traditions may not all refer to the same flood, apparently the vast majority do. The assertion that many of these flood stories came from contacts with missionaries will not stand up because most of them were gathered by anthropologists not interested in vindicating the Bible, and they are filled with fanciful and pagan elements evidently the result of transmission for extended periods of time in a pagan society. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition."

The Bible is Historical and has Prophecies

While the historical accuracy alone is not evidence for the Christian God, we certainly would not expect historical innacuracies in God's word. And the book of Daniel was completed by Daniel in the year 536 B.C.E, and that specific prophecy I showed you from Daniel was written approximately 200 years before the events:


"Though 'higher critics' of the Bible have called in question the historicalness of Daniel's book, archaeological finds over the years have completely routed their assertions. For example, these critics leveled scorn at Daniel's statement that Belshazzar was king in Babylon at the time that Nabonidus was reputed to be ruler. (Dan. 5:1) Archaeology has now established beyond question that Belshazzar was an actual person and that there was a dual rulership in Babylon for many years. For example, they have unearthed a tablet, dated in the twelfth year of Nabonidus, containing an oath made in the name of Nabonidus, the king, and Belshazzar, the king's son, thus showing that Belshazzar ranked with his father. This is also of interest in explaining why Belshazzar offered to make Daniel 'the third one in the kingdom' if he could interpret the handwriting on the wall. Nabonidus would be considered the first, Belshazzar the second, and Daniel came to be heralded as the third ruler. (Dan. 5:16, 29) One authority now says: 'Cuneiform allusions to Belshazzar have thrown so much light upon the role which he played that his place in history stands clearly revealed. There are many texts which indicate that Belshazzar almost equaled Nabonidus in position and prestige. Dual rulership during most of the last Neo-Babylonian reign is an established fact. Nabonidus exercised supreme authority from his court in Tema in Arabia, while Belshazzar acted as coregent in the homeland with Babylon as his center of influence. It is evident that Belshazzar was not a feeble viceroy; he was entrusted with 'the kingship.'"

Source: All Scripture Is Inspired Of God And Beneficial

The Bible is Internally Consistent and has been the most Attacked book in History

If the Quran was the most attacked book in history I would not change religions, because this would not nullify the thousands of manuscripts that show the Bible has been the same in almost 2,000 years, nor could I ignore the historical evidence that the Quran has not been as perfectly preserved as many claim. But despite being the most attacked book, it is also the most distributed. History shows God has been protecting the Bible, and thus I have no good reason to question God inspired all the 66 books of the Bible, each with evidence of canonicity, which you can learn about if you study the Book, "All Scripture Is Inspired Of God And Beneficial".


The Bible and science

The Bible is in harmony with scientific facts. That birds evolved from dinosaurs is not a fact. It is a theory based on a few similarities between dinosaurs and birds. God could have chosen to make these animals with these similarities, but made the birds first, could He have not?


Evidence of Jesus' miracles from Babylonian Talmud: http://www.facingthechallenge.org...


I will once again await your response. Back to you, Con!

Skepticalone

Con


Thank you so much, Pro!



Sodom and Gomorrah


Pro has submitted what he considers to be evidence of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. His source is biased. Not only is it from a Christian source, but one more interested in the value of this myth for the purpose of proselytizing rather than being interested in archeology. That being said, I searched for any mainstream archaeologists who verify this, but I was unable to find any mention of this outside of religiously biased websites such as the one Pro provided. I noticed in one of Pro’s later arguments he suggests archaeologists are biased against Christianity, but seeing as how there are Christian archaeologists, that is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Christian archaeologists would be extremely interested in validating this finding if it exists, but none have confirmed this finding – at least not in any legitimate manner. Also, Ron Wyatt is an “adventurer and former nurse anesthetist”. Amusingly, he also claims to have found the Ark, the resurrection site of Jesus, the Tower of Babel, and the site of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, among many others.[3] He is completely committed to pseudo archeology, and is hardly qualified to be presented as an expert. My point stands.

The plagues


Again, Pro has used a source which is less than impressive. An unknown person suggests that the Ipuwer Papyrus is an extra Biblical account for the plagues and the Exodus of the Hebrews. We do not know if this person has any credentials or is even qualified to speak on this subject as an expert. However, in order to be throrough, I searched for this papyrus, and found that there are many differences between the Exodus account and this papyrus. The main discrepancy would be that it discusses an invasion instead of an exodus.

Commenting on such attempts to draw parallels, he writes that "all these approaches read Ipuwer hyper-literally and selectively" and points out that there are also conflicts between Ipuwer and the biblical account, such as Ipuwer's lamentation of an Asiatic (Semitic) invasion rather than a mass departure. [1]

Also, experts reject it as an Exodus account:

The association of the Ipuwer Papyrus with the Exodus as describing the same event is generally rejected by Egyptologists.[1]

My point stands.

Exodus


Pro has used yet another questionable source. He has used a Biblical site to establish a Biblical view is true. This is simply a biased assessment. As I mentioned last round, mainstream archaeologists have given up the search for evidence of the Hebrews wondering the desert for 40 years as a fruitless search, and these are the experts. However, to be accommodating, I found a Biblical source which acknowledges there is no evidence.

“There has been a lot of speculation on the route of the Exodus and why the traditional site hasn't yielded any archaeological evidence. After all, if two million people wander in a desert for forty years, you'd think that at least something would be found to support it. But, nothing at all has been unearthed in the Sinai Peninsula supporting the Biblical account of the Exodus.” [2]

In addition to this, the pottery found in the Sinai desert is from about 4500 years ago, which is a millennium too early for the Exodus account. If we hold the Flood happen between 4000-5000 years ago, then we are advocating the Israelites were wandering the desert before the flood, or during it. Needless to say, it would be a serious plot twist if God’s chosen people were washed away with the rest of depraved mankind in the flood. These are obvious flaws with the ‘evidence’ Pro has put forth. My point stands.

The Flood


I found this answer refreshing in its honesty. Unfortunately for Pro, faith is an inadequate substitute for evidence. In fact, by definition, faith is belief without evidence, and this is not rational. Especially when evidence is reasonable to expect and a lack of evidence argues against your faith.

Given this reasonable expectation of evidence for such a major event, we can conclude it didn’t happen as stated, or that it didn’t happen at all. Let us explore those options:

1. It didn’t happen – the god inspired account is wrong, and this is incongruous with a perfect omnipotent, omniscient being. The story (and possibly the Christian god) is a myth.

2. It was misinterpreted by the audience (humans) – The Bible is unclear and this is incongruous with a perfect being capable of communicating the universe into being. God is not great, or he does not exist.

Either way you choose to look at it, this points to the Christian god not existing with the characteristics claimed, or not existing at all. My point stands.

On a side note, If Pro chooses to believe the flood story because it is in the Bible and cites the Bible as evidence of the Flood, then this is circular reasoning. His claim and his ‘proof’ cannot come from the same source. Using logical fallacies to arrive at a conclusion is not reasonable. I only mention this since it seems he needs no evidence to believe - only the claim from the Bible is necessary for his belief.

Flood Myths


Flood myths from other cultures mentioning other gods are not an argument for the Christian god. If it can be said they make a claim for a god which is not YHWH, then it is irrelevant to this debate. This is still cherry picking the data, sir. It is a logical fallacy.

Historical accuracy


I have already conceded that the Bible is historical in part. However, I cannot agree that the Bible is without flaws historically. For instance, camels were not domesticated in Egypt until 930-900BC [4], and Abraham who lived between 1500-2000BC was said to have had domesticated camels in Genesis 24:11. Basically, Abraham would have domesticated camels as much as a millennium before they existed. There are many other mentions of camels, and these anachronisms are historically inaccurate.

As far as prophecy is concerned, Pro has merely asserted an earlier date for the composition of Daniel directly contradicting the accepted scholarship of 165 BCE as the composition date. There is really nothing for me to argue against here, since my original point backed by scholarship has not been refuted..

The Bible is internally consistent/And most attacked


1. There was no response to my rebuttal of Pro's internally consistent argument.
2. If Pro cannot accept the hypothetical example of his argument for another holy book, then he acknowledges it is unreasonable to accept his "we hated it, but now we love it' argument for the the Bible as valid.

The Bible and Science


Pro dismisses scientific evidence in favor of his beliefs. The fossil record clearly shows birds evolving from land animals and there is very little objection to this in the scientific community. It seems Pro has fallen back on magic to explain the discrepancy in the Bible, and that is an unfalsifiable, contrived explanation based in special pleading (another fallacy), not to mention circular reasoning – he accepts the Bible’s claim as evidence of the claim.

Also, Pro has dropped my rebuttal of Jacob and the genetic absurdities.

Back to you, sir!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] https://carm.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Bible2000

Pro

Flood Myths

The flood myths certainly are relevant. I have done no cherry picking. I am aware of the differences between the hundreds of stories around the world, and this is understandable. If such a cataclysmic flood did happen, this is a story that would be told generation after generation, and over time there would be changes in how the story is told, but the truth is preserved in God's extraordinary book the Bible.

Historical Accuracy


Archeology does not disprove the Bible. Understand that archeology is digging around in left overs:

"Only 3% of the ancient past has survived, mostly underground. Of the buried stuff only 3% has been excavated. Of dug-up materials only 3% have been adequately published. You figure it out. Could someone piece together your personal history using 3% of 3% of 3% of the stuff you throw away? Someone might even 'prove' you didn't exist!"

Source: http://www.whataboutjesus.com...

In other words, you have made the logical fallacy of claiming absence of evidence is evidence of absence, even if you feel there is a reasonable expectation to find evidence. Understand the possibilities. There might be evidence that has not been found yet, or perhaps that evidence has been found, but not adequately published.

The reasonableness of believing in the Christian God is not dependant on whether I can prove every single thing in the Bible, although there is evidence of the Bible's historical credibility:

"The Bible is also historically accurate and reliable. Its accounts are specific. They include not only the names but also the ancestry of individuals. In contrast to secular historians, who often do not mention the defeats of their own people, Bible writers were honest, even recording their own failings and those of their nation. In the Bible book of Numbers, for instance, the writer Moses admits his own serious error for which he was severely reproved. (Numbers 20:2-12) Such honesty is rare in other historical accounts but is found in the Bible because it is a book from God."

Source: http://www.jw.org...

Because of the mere assertions of some scholars am I supposed to ignore the evidence of authorship I sent you in the previous round? Consider the following quote from the Westminster Dictionary of the Bible:

"The asserted historical inaccuracies in Daniel are not statements which are disproved by history, but only statements which have seemed difficult to harmonize with the meager accounts of secular historians. The asserted historical inaccuracies have, moreover, been steadily diminishing before the increasing knowledge of the times of Cyrus. [...] The growth of our knowledge of this period shows how cautious one should be in doubting the historical accuracy of the Biblical records."

As you can see, those "scholars" have no valid reason to doubt the authorship of the book of Daniel, and history has constantly proved them wrong. Now, if you are going to ignore the evidence and have more faith on those with the "scholar" title, that's your problem. But my argument still stands.

The Bible is internaly consistent/And most attacked

I already replied to your rebuttal, and explained as well why I would not believe in the Quran, even if it was the most attacked book in history:


"If the Quran was the most attacked book in history I would not change religions, because this would not nullify the thousands of manuscripts that show the Bible has been the same in almost 2,000 years [manuscripts which have been found thanks to archeology, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the greatest discovery of our time], nor could I ignore the historical evidence that the Quran has not been as perfectly preserved as many claim.

But despite being the most attacked book, it is also the most distributed. History shows God has been protecting the Bible, and thus I have no good reason to question God inspired all the 66 books of the Bible, each with evidence of canonicity, which you can learn about if you study the Book, 'All Scripture Is Inspired Of God And Beneficial'".

That the Bible has been the most attacked book in history alone does not make it the word of God, but it is certainly something to think about. Despite all these attacks, as would be expected from the book where God preserved the truth he has revealed, the Bible has been published in over 2,600 languages. On average, more than a million Bibles are distributed each week, and billions of copies are produced of either the whole Bible or part of it. There is no other book like the Bible. God certainly has been and still is protecting it.

The Bible and Science


Con, I don't care how the scientific community interprets the fossil record. You did not live that far back in time, and neither did those scientists, nor do we observe birds evolving from land animals now. They cannot say it is a fact that birds evolved from land animals, and it makes more sense to me and many others to learn about the creation from the Creator himself rather than trusting in the theories of a method limited by imperfect human observation! Nonetheless, the Bible is in harmony with established scientific facts and, in fact, contains science discovered at a later date, and this was an argument you did not address: "The Bible confirms [...] scientific facts such as the water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6.), which were not fully understood until well over 1,000 years later."

Concerning "Jacob and the genetic absurdities", the book Insight, Volume 1 explains,

"The offspring abnormally marked or colored, and therefore Jacob’s wages, proved to be more numerous than those of normal solid color, which were to be Laban’s. Since the desired results were obtained, Jacob probably thought his stratagem with the striped sticks was responsible. In this he no doubt shared the same misconception commonly held by many people, namely, that such things can have an effect on the offspring. However, in a dream his Creator instructed him otherwise.

In his dream Jacob learned that certain principles of genetics, and not the sticks, were responsible for his success. Whereas Jacob was tending only solid-colored animals, yet the vision revealed that the male goats were striped, speckled, and spotty. How could this be? Apparently they were hybrids even though of uniform color, the result of crossbreeding in Laban’s flock before Jacob began being paid. So certain of these animals carried in their reproductive cells the hereditary factors for spotting and speckling future generations, according to the laws of heredity discovered by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century [Genesis 31:10-12]."


Brief Summary

P1) Evidence shows all religions have a common source, a truth revealed by God which was chaged by religion over time.
P2) That truth has been preserved in God's word.
P3) God's word must be internally consistent.

P4) God's word must be historically accurate.
P5) God's word must be in harmony with established scientific facts.
P6) God's word must demonstrate to be protected by God despite of opposition.
P7) God's word must have qualities that make it extraordinary when compared to other "holy" books.
P8) God's word must demonstrate God's power through, for example, fulfilled prophecies and Science discovered at a later date.
P9) All the premises above are true about the Bible.
P10) The Bible is God's word.
C) It is more reasonable to believe in the Christian God than not to.

Con commits a fallacy of irrelevance when attacking the third premise by claiming that it can be explained by men choosing the books of the canon. His argument does not nullify the Bible's internal consistency despite the fact that it had over 40 writers who did the writing of the Bible books in three languages, three continents, in a period of 1,610 years so there was no opportunity for collusion. If Con would like to further investigate the canonicity of the Bible book, I invited him to study the book All Scripture Is Inspired Of God And Beneficial.

Con also commits a fallacy of ignorance when attacking the fourth premise by assuming absence of evidence is evidence of absence when he feels this is the case. This does not nullify all the archeological and internal evidence of the Bible's historical credibility. Con commits a fallacy of authority by ignoring evidence that the Bible prophecies were written before the event because a "scholar" says so.

Con also commits the fallacy by confusing a scientific theory with a scientific fact when attacking my fifth premise. And he commits another fallacy claiming the Bible is scientifically innaccurate because at one point Jacob had an erroneous idea about Genetics, which God eventually corrects.

Con attacks my sixth premise by asking me if I would believe in the Quran if this sixth premise is true. I do not doubt that some of the premises may be true of some of "holy" books. Nevertheless, all premises are only true of the Bible. In addition, I could not ignore the thousands of ancient manuscripts that show the Bible has been the same in almost 2,000 years or the many hadith that show the Quran has not been perfectly preserved. Thus, the answer is no. I would not believe in Quran even if it was the most attacked book in history. Nevertheless, this does not nullify the argument for the Bible.

For the eigth premise, Con claims I am over reading the text when I say Bible talks of the expansion of the universe. I will concede to that. However, he does not address the water cycle, was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. And yet, there it is, revealed to mankind in the Bible in 1,600 B.C.!

Conclusion

My premises stand. It is more reasonable to believe in the Christian God rather than not to. Thank you, Con! Back to you now.
Skepticalone

Con

Thanks, Pro!



Guilty or Not Guilty?


Pro has dropped all of my arguments. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Plagues, The Exodus, and the great Flood all have no evidence to back them as actual events (at least as described in the Bible). Bible2000 implicitly agreed there is a reasonable expectation for evidence by attempting to provide evidence for these accounts. Thus, he agrees absence of evidence is evidence of absence when there is a reasonable expectation for evidence, and there is a reasonable expectation of evidence in these cases. His evidence was inadequate due to his sources lacking any credibility. Since he has been met by a dead end in this regard, he now disregards this lack of evidence as irrelevant. There are two problems with this approach:

1. If Pro does not rely on objective evidence for his belief in the Christian god, then he relies completely on the claims of the Bible. It is a circular argument. The claim of YHWH and the ‘evidence’ for YHWH cannot come from the same source. It relies on the conclusion being built into the premise. Essentially, the Bible is not self-authenticating.





2. Secondly, Pro is attempting to move the goalposts. He implicitly acknowledged lack of evidence would be problematic but when lack of evidence was shown to be a reality, Bible2000 arbitrarily attempts to supply reasons why lack of evidence offers no reasonable disqualification for his belief.

Overall, Pro dropping these arguments should be considered a strike against the reasonableness of his position, and a check for me.




Rebuttals


I did not realize it at first, but Pro is attempting a bit of a Gish Gallop strategy. He provides many arguments with little explanation knowing that to argue against them will take more effort from me than it took for him to simply state them. In the interest of fairness, I will take on his syllogism since most of his points are covered there anyway, and then I will hit the highlights on a few specific comments and arguments outside of this as my character limitations allow for. I would like the voters to keep this in mind if I am not able to respond to something specifically.


Brief Summary



P1) Evidence shows all religions have a common source, a truth revealed by God which was chaged by religion over time.

P1. I am not sure what evidence Pro is referring to in order to support this premise. Religions are all different, and they have not been around as long as humanity. In fact, the oldest religion we know of has only been around for 6000 years, so for 95% of humanity’s existence no religion existed. Plus, on a side note, if religion changed the truth revealed by god, then how can an individual know the Christian god is the deity responsible for this truth? Christianity was not first or last in the long line of religions.

P2) That truth has been preserved in God's word.

P2. The obvious question is How do you know the truth is preserved in the Bible? The answer to this and the following question will lead us in a big circle that is only accepted by those who already believe.

P3) God's word must be internally consistent.

Sure, I will agree with this premise, but the Bible is not internally consistent. Look at the expectations of the Messiah in the OT testament and compare then to the representation of the Messiah by Jesus in the New Testament.

“Orthodox views have generally held that the Messiah will be descended from his father through the line of King David,[5] and will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, father a male heir and re-institute the Sanhedrin, among other things.” [3]

Jesus could not be descended from David through his father’s line since he had no biological father. The Jews were not gathered, there was no peace, the 2nd temple still stood – Jesus could not have rebuilt it in his lifetime, and he certainly did not have any children that the Bible (or any other source) mentions. Jesus does not fulfill the Old Testament expectations, yet the New Testament establishes him as the Messiah. This is not an internally consistent Bible, and the Bible does not agree with this premise.

P4) God's word must be historically accurate.

Technically, the word of god need not speak of any historical events, but sure, the historicity (if there is any) must be accurate, and any flaws will suggest it is not the work of an omniscient being. The Bible is not without its flaws. I have already established the domesticated camel anachronisms in the Bible. The Bible does not hold to this premise.

P5) God's word must be in harmony with established scientific facts.

This is similar to the historicity in that scientific facts need not be in the holy book of any deity, but if they are there, then sure, they must be accurate. I have already established the order of sea animals, birds, and land animals came to be (according to the Bible), and the manipulation of the offspring coloring by Jacob, are not in harmony with scientific facts. The flaws are not limited to these two inaccuracies either.

P6) God's word must demonstrate to be protected by God despite of opposition.

I’m not sure how this premise follows from anything, but sure, I’ll go along. The Bible has not been perfectly preserved. There are additions, deletions, typos, mistranslations, etc., so to claim the Bible is ‘preserved’ is at best a guess. We don’t know what the originals manuscript actually said (they don't exist anymore), not to mention, the copies we do have disagree.

“But in the past 100 years or so, tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament have been discovered, dating back centuries. And what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the books differ significantly from earlier ones—in fact, even copies from the same time periods differ from each other. “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament,” says Dr. Bart D. Ehrman.” [4]

P7) God's word must have qualities that make it extraordinary when compared to other "holy" books.

I can agree with this premise, but I do not contrast holy books, so I have nothing to add here.

P8) God's word must demonstrate God's power through, for example, fulfilled prophecies and Science discovered at a later date.

…and the prophecies and science must never be flawed. I have already addressed both of these earlier in the debate.

P9) All the premises above are true about the Bible.

This is not true, plus I have never seen a premise to state the other premises are true! This seems redundant. Obviously, you believe your premises are true, otherwise you must accept your conclusion would not be valid.

P10) The Bible is God's word.

This is begging the question as the graphic above illustrates. (circular)

C) It is more reasonable to believe in the Christian God than not to.

The conclusion is not supported by the premises.



Highlights!

Historical Accuracy

I know this was covered in the last section, but I must point out a serious flaw in Pro's quote.

"Only 3% of the ancient past has survived, mostly underground. Of the buried stuff only 3% has been excavated. Of dug-up materials only 3% have been adequately published. You figure it out. Could someone piece together your personal history using 3% of 3% of 3% of the stuff you throw away? Someone might even 'prove' you didn't exist!"

For this statement to make any sense, we must know the entirety of what has survived from the ancient past, and the entirety of what is still buried before we can know only 3% of either is all we have. We do not know what 100% of either are!! That being said, I find the claim of only 3% of discovered materials to be dubious considering the source.


The Bible and Science


Pro acknowledges the Bible is not consistent with science by his argument. He cannot claim the Bible is consistent with science while at the same time arguing against discrepancies between the Bible and science. Either the Bible and science are kosher, or they are not. I have established they are not, and I consider this to be a concession by Pro to that fact.

Jacob's ignorance of Genetics. I will assume this story is true for the sake of the argument, but this is yet another account from the Bible where there is no evidence it ever happened. That being said, if the Christian god truly had anything to do with this account, then sticks of any color should not be necessary. However, they were (as far as Jacob was concerned), and Jacob’s explanation is merely an argument from ignorance (God helped me because Laban was cheating me). It should also be noted, God never told Jacob," That would have never worked without my help". The author of Genesis could have merely been suggesting God gave Jacob the idea, not that Jacob's idea was absurd. I see no reason to reject that the author and/or Jacob believed the sticks were necessary for this genetic lottery to occur.

Creation order of birds? While it is true, I nor any scientists were there millions/billions of years ago, there are many lines of evidence in various fields that all lead us in the same direction concerning evolution. These would include “geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing, and many other sciences” [1] [2]


It is dubious to reject this evidence for a belief with no evidence. This being said, Pro has shown his preference to take the Bible version without evidence over the scientific explanation with many lines of evidence. I encourage the voters to consider if his position on this matter is reasonable. I submit - No.


That is all the space I have. I look forward to Pro's conclusion! Back to you, Bible2000.




[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.skeptic.com...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://www.newsweek.com...

Debate Round No. 4
Bible2000

Pro

Bible2000 forfeited this round.
Skepticalone

Con

Unfortunately, Pro has forfeited his final round. Bible2000 has implicitly acknowledged evidence should be expected for the selected Bible stories, and lack of evidence is evidence of absence in these cases. Pro was unable to provide any evidence of these events. The stories I picked involved the direct interactions of the Christian God with humans. If these stories did not occur, then it stands to reason God was not involved. Since these stories and others from the Bible are used as evidence for the Christian god, then illustrating they likely didn't happen is problematic for reasonable belief in the Christian god. In addition to this, Pro has failed to provide a desperately needed refutation of my challenges to his arguments. For these reasons, a vote for Con is the obvious choice.

I thank Bible2000 for an interesting debate, and look forward to reading his future debates.
Debate Round No. 5
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Skepticalone 1 year ago
Skepticalone
Thanks for your vote, ewolf.
Posted by Skepticalone 1 year ago
Skepticalone
I play pool three nights a week. I am very fond of the game.
Posted by Skepticalone 1 year ago
Skepticalone
"God of the Gaps? The more we learn, the bigger the gap gets. I wonder why? " I don't think you understand what is meant by this.

These are examples of God of the Gap arguments throughout history. Each one has been filled, and the gaps in which God may be substituted for ignorance is getting smaller:

2000 years ago: "We do not know what causes lightning, therefore it must be a god throwing lightning bolts from the sky."
1000 years ago: "We do not know what keeps the planets in their courses. There must be angels pushing them along."
500 years ago: "We do not know what causes diseases, therefore they must be punishments from God."
200 years ago: "We do not know how the many species of plants and animals could have appeared, therefore God must have created them."
100 years ago: "We do not know how the universe started, therefore God must have done it."
60 years ago: "We do not know how genes are passed from parent to child, therefore traits must be imprinted upon the soul."

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
Posted by Skepticalone 1 year ago
Skepticalone
"SkepticalOne, there is no valid arguments for your position, because it is not the most reasonable one. An atheist ignores all the things that make the Bible extraordinary including the fulfilled prophecies, to live a hopeless, often depressive and suicidal, life. Does this really seem like the most reasonable position to you?"

This is a red herring. No matter if atheism did entail hopelessness and/or suicidal tendencies, it does not make your position any more reasonable. Plus, I did not argue for atheism as an alternative, and I don't find life to be hopeless. You're striking out on all counts here.

"That same faith you have in the theory of evolution. " I don't have the same kind of faith in evolution that you have in the Christian god. You are equivocating. Faith for God is belief without evidence. Faith for evolution is trust that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion. Plus, remember, you said The Bible is in harmony with scientific facts, so the Bible and evolution must agree lest you acknowledge you were wrong.

The rest of that post is an emotional appeal with no substance.
Posted by Bible2000 1 year ago
Bible2000
Oh, you play pool? I like that game. I got to play with a friend's dad, who is a tournament champion, in a pool table at a log cabin I stayed in for 4 days on top of a mountain in North Carolina.
Posted by Bible2000 1 year ago
Bible2000
Ok, talk to you later. :)
Posted by Bible2000 1 year ago
Bible2000
You showed Jacob's story can't be confirmed by science, not that the Bible contradicts any scientific facts.
Posted by Bible2000 1 year ago
Bible2000
God of the Gaps? The more we learn, the bigger the gap gets. I wonder why? And if you doubt it, go ahead and read this: http://www.godandscience.org...
Posted by Skepticalone 1 year ago
Skepticalone
I'll have to continue this conversation with you later. I am at a pool tourney now. Talk to you later, bud.
Posted by Bible2000 1 year ago
Bible2000
SkepticalOne, there is no valid arguments for your position, because it is not the most reasonable one. An atheist ignores all the things that make the Bible extraordinary including the fulfilled prophecies, to live a hopeless, often depressive and suicidal, life. Does this really seem like the most reasonable position to you? I am not telling you to be ignorant to be happy. Yes, faith is required. That same faith you have in the theory of evolution. Except my faith which, again, is not blind, gives me hope of a better future. The Bible has practical advice, and satisfying answers to life's biggest questions. It exhorts us to test the truth within it, and that is something we have done. We have considered plenty of compelling reasons to have faith in the Bible. What continues to stop you from wanting to learn more about your loving Father, and to have faith in what He has promised you?

Revelation 21:3-5 "With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: "Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes,+ and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away." And the One seated on the throne said: "Look! I am making all things new." Also he says: "Write, for these words are faithful and true."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ewolf 1 year ago
ewolf
Bible2000Skepticalone
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: As a Christian, I was more inclined to side with the Instigator before the debate. However, the Contender was formidable. Every point the Pro made, the Con scientifically rebutted. I was especially impressed by the visuals. Additionally, the Pro forfeited the 5th round. This is an unsportsmanlike method of walking away from a debate. Because of science, sources, illustrations, and professionalism, my vote is cast for the Con.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Bible2000Skepticalone
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round. All other categories were even.