The Instigator
Cold-Mind
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Truth_seeker
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Naryuzap is more likely to exist then Biblical God

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 4 votes the winner is...
Cold-Mind
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 581 times Debate No: 56860
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Cold-Mind

Pro

BoP is shared. Resolution is topic.
Note: Number of believers will not be relevant argument in this debate. It is possible that majority of people are mistaken.

What we know about Biblical God:
- Everything that bible says
- He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent

What we know about Naryuzap:
- She created all matter and all laws of nature
- She is not made from matter
- She has ability to change laws of nature, and she has ability to add new matter in the universe
- When each human dies, Naryuzap sends his soul to the heaven (Where soul will reside forever in immortal and indestructible body that does not feel pain)
- People living on our planet can feel loved, stress-free and fulfilled if they pray to Naryuzap for some time while sitting in silent room
- Some people sometimes get knowledge about Naryuzap in their dreams

Voting rules:
- Who had more reliable sources will not be taken into account.
- Forfeit in round 1, 2 or 3 is loss.
- Making new arguments in round 4 will be slightly punished and those arguments will not be taken into account.
Truth_seeker

Con

There's a difference between the Biblical God and Naryuzap

1. The Bible has been passed down by many people (Masoretes, Essenes, Apostles) and there are many witnesses to God's power to their lives. Just look up Christian testimonies on them.

2. God created everything

He is invisible

He can change everything

He raises up those who are dead back to life

People don't just feel loved, stress-free, and fulfilled when they pray to God, but are in that state of being.

People get knowledge from God whenever he chooses to reveal it to them whether in a dream or elsewhere.

We have many sources you can look up to confirm the reliability of the Bible and can experience God now, while we only have your word that Naryuzap but no evidence of his power.
Debate Round No. 1
Cold-Mind

Pro

My opponent wrote just "God" for Biblical God, so I will write just "God" for Naryuzap, in order to make it fair.
I will address my opponent's arguments now:

- "Gilgamesh" was also passed down by many people, for even longer time then Bible. But still we don't claim that it is truth.
- Yes, there are many witnesses of her power.
- If by "everything" my opponent means matter and laws of nature, then yes, she created everything.
- Both God and Biblical God are invisible, that is not difference.
- To what kind of life Biblical God raises people?
- Does my opponent by "that state of being" mean "they are loved. stress-free and fulfilled"? If so, how can they know they are other then by feeling it?
- Elsewhere of dream is when people are awake. How exactly do people get knowledge from Biblical God during being awake?

Lets address reliability of the Bible. It is not a book. It is collection of the books. Who is to say what book should be in collection? - Heads of the churches.
Each book was written by human. Bible does not say Biblical God was dictating people what to write. It only says they were inspired by Biblical God.
Thousands of years ago, people had less words. One their word has meanings of multiple our words. No translation can be reliable.
Thousands of years ago, people spoke in metaphors. These metaphors are interpreted differently by different people.
Conclusion: Bible is not reliable source.

Now I will address inconsistency of Biblical God.
He designed all people, and yet he punished them for being homosexuals by burning them in fire.
He committed the greatest genocide ever (big flood), and yet he calls himself omnibenevolent.
Except these above, he killed Egyptian kids and the entire army, and yet he told people "thou shalt not kill". We have a word for person like that - hypocrite.
He sent his beloved, innocent son to the Earth to be tortured and killed. Since he is omnipotent, he could get same results without sending him there, magically.
Truth_seeker

Con

Gilgamesh is simply a myth to explain how the Babylonian gods saved 1 man from a flood, but has no relevance today. The Babylonian gods are nowhere to be found acting upon humanity nor did they show us that they exist whereas the Bible continues to be God's Word and divinely inspired in each generation.

Like i said my opponent fails to provide proof other than his own word whereas i experienced the Biblical God and have a relationship with him while i have never encountered Naryuzap.

The Biblical God raises people to eternal life.

You are loved because you read the Bible and know God. Stress leaves automatically.

People get revelation from reading his Word and supernaturally receiving knowledge not known previously before.

"Lets address reliability of the Bible. It is not a book. It is collection of the books. Who is to say what book should be in collection? - Heads of the churches."

wrong, no evidence exists to show that the heads of the churches decide Biblical canon.

"Each book was written by human. Bible does not say Biblical God was dictating people what to write. It only says they were inspired by Biblical God."

Rev. 1:19 "19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;"

This shows your statement is wrong

"Thousands of years ago, people had less words. One their word has meanings of multiple our words. No translation can be reliable."

This doesn't prevent us from learning their language and letting context determine the meaning.

"Thousands of years ago, people spoke in metaphors. These metaphors are interpreted differently by different people.
Conclusion: Bible is not reliable source."

The metaphors used have no strict right or wrong answer. For example:

"3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake."

Even if we'd never looked at the original Hebrew, in some cases, the meaning would still be clear.

The rest just seems like a rant..
Debate Round No. 2
Cold-Mind

Pro

- "divinely inspired" is meaningless spooky language

- I experienced Naryuzap while I never encountered Biblical God. My opponent fails to provide proof other then his words, and words of more Biblical God's believers that what is written in Bible is truth. What kind of relationship does my opponent have with Biblical God?

- So does Naryuzap. My opponent mentioned this as difference

- Non-sequitur

- Word can not be read. Only book can be read. If something is happening, we call it natural. If something is not happening, then we call it supernatural. Saying that something supernatural is happening is contradiction.

- Then who did? Books that make bible were not always together. As my opponent can see here ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ), different religious groups use different cannons. Even roman catholic and protestant and cannons are different.

- Rev 1:19 says "Write what is, and what you saw, without making stuff up" in non-spooky language. It only confirms my statement that God was not dictating people what to write in books of bible.

- Sure, you can learn their language, and you still will not interpret it in the same way someone else would. As can be proven by 2 people translating any complex book.

I expect my opponent to answer the rest of my statements in round 2 in his next round.
Truth_seeker

Con

"I experienced Naryuzap while I never encountered Biblical God. My opponent fails to provide proof other then his words, and words of more Biblical God's believers that what is written in Bible is truth. What kind of relationship does my opponent have with Biblical God?"

The difference is that I have sources that you can objectively observe to be of the Bible while you don't. I cannot prove to you that the Biblical God exists, but neither can you prove to me that your god exists, so i leave it up to my God to give you a revelation of himself.

Like i said, no evidence is given that the Bible has had any official canon of it's books.

"Rev 1:19 says "Write what is, and what you saw, without making stuff up" in non-spooky language. It only confirms my statement that God was not dictating people what to write in books of bible."

This verse clearly goes against your previous statement

"Each book was written by human. Bible does not say Biblical God was dictating people what to write. It only says they were inspired by Biblical God."

"Sure, you can learn their language, and you still will not interpret it in the same way someone else would. As can be proven by 2 people translating any complex book."

Please show me evidence that there is a problem in interpreting the same complex book to reach a conclusion and i will believe you =)
Debate Round No. 3
Cold-Mind

Pro

Only proof my opponent has that bible is true is his word and links to words of another people who don't have any proof except words. Bible can not be proof that what is written in bible is true.
As stated in Round 1, number of believers will not be relevant in this debate.

Evidence for problems in translation: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Conclusion: My opponent has not refuted some of my arguments, and has not even responded to others.
My opponent provided no arguments that Biblical God is more likely to Exist than Naryuzap.
Truth_seeker

Con

Pro did not prove his argument. I'm grounded on experience while i had no encounter with Naryuzap. The link you sent isn't proof that the Bible cannot be completely understood.

The Old Testament is found to have almost no errors (1).

The New Testament is also found no errors affecting doctrine (2).

The Bible has Archaeological artifacts proving it's legitimacy according to E.M. Blaiklock " "It is important to note that Near Eastern archaeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas." (3).

The 66 books in the Bible are thousands of years apart from each other pointing to one large plan of God's salvation. John R.W. Stott says ""There is indeed a wide variety of human authors and themes (in the Bible). Yet behind these"there lies a single divine author with a single unifying theme." (4).

Prophecies are also true. R.C. Sproul writes ""The very dimension of the sheer fulfillment of prophecy of the Old Testament Scriptures should be enough to convince anyone that we are dealing with a supernatural piece of literature".God has himself planted within the scriptures an internal consistency that bears witness that this is his Word." (5).

With these in mind, it is more likely that the Biblical God exists vs. some god that you made up.

Sources & links:

1. (Harris, J. G., The Qumran Commentary on Habakkuk. London: A. R. Mowbray, 1966, p.22-30).

2. (John W. Wenham, Christ and he Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) 186-88.)

3. http://www.amazon.com...

4. http://www.christianbook.com...

5. http://www.christianbook.com...
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ilona 3 years ago
Ilona
I agree with Truth_seeker 100%
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Cold-MindTruth_seeker
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: only real evidence was con BUT IN LAST ROUND, so discounted. pqro proved god inconsitsent
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Cold-MindTruth_seeker
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: More compelling arguments
Vote Placed by neutral 3 years ago
neutral
Cold-MindTruth_seeker
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is hyperbole, but unfortunately, until quite literally the very end, Con was too. Evidence would be some kind of scholarly support, and it LITERALLY the last thing con did. Hyperbole vs. Hyperbole with evidence at the end ...
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
Cold-MindTruth_seeker
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: PRO basically showed that both Naryuzap and the Biblical God are almost equally likely, but Naryuzap edges out the Biblical God because of the inconsistencies of said deity.