The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
28 Points

Public Christian Apologists Are Either Arrogant Liars Or Totally Deluded Narcissists?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/2/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,717 times Debate No: 61206
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (88)
Votes (4)




I've been watching the arguments from Evangelical Christian Apologists for decades now and their Arguments are getting more and more Deluded such as the use of presuppositional apologetics as proof of God, ha ha, as if?

Once upon a time I thought that Christian Apologists were just a little misled and they just simply had been induced by indoctrination into poorly supported beliefs.

Though on many recent debates and arguments along with videos produced by Apologists, I now consider them as seriously brain dead fools.

Such Evangelical videos by the likes of Ray Comfort and Eric Hovind has confirmed that both are extremely Arrogant Liars, they cannot possibly believe any of their nonsense or they have been so extremely Deluded and Narcissistic that they think everybody else in the world is wrong.

Though with Ray Comfort and Ken Ham, it is far more likely from their recent work that they are deliberately lying to their followers to keep the money rolling in.
Thus they are extremely Arrogant Liars.

With the likes of Eric Hovind and Lee Strobel, much of their work appears to put them in the same boat as Comfort and Ham, but it is still possible that they may just be so extremely deluded that they cannot see the rampant stupidity in their beliefs and comments.

Yet we also have the likes of William Lane Craig, who is reasonably obvious not an Arrogant Liar but an Apologist who was completely deluded by a personal experience that appeared real to him, but he pushes this Anecdote strongly as being evidence of reality, which is fallacious!

The belief that his own personal experience, revelation is a message to others, makes him a Narcissist.

Thus WLC is more likely just a Deluded Narcissist.

Con can make arguments in this round or attack my opening statement.
BOP of course is mine!
Best of luck to whoever takes the challenge!


This seems to be a troll debate, but hey, whatever.

Pro says Christian Apologists are either liars or deluded.
If they are liars, they are knowingly pushing something they believe to be false.
If they are deluded, they are unknowingly pushing something they believe to be true, but is in fact false.

Either way, Pro says Christian Apologists are pushing something that is false.

Pro says he has burden of proof.

So to supply his burden of proof, Pro needs to show that Christian Apologists are pushing something false. If he cannot show that Christianity is false, there is no solid ground on which to conclude that apologists are pushing something false.

If this argument violates some rule of logic or debate, just remember, Pro set his own argument up, I just reworded it.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Heaps Con for taking up the Challenge!

Though Firstly:

Lets review what Christianity and Public Christian Apologists are defending with their Apologetics.

1: The Existence Of The Bible God:

Until the last 400 years apologists had no problems defending their God as they could put God into being the cause of all natural events around the planet and in the Cosmos.
In 600 CE: Q: What's that new light in the sky with what looks like a tail behind it? A: A signal from God!
In 1800 CE: A: A Comet, probably will pass by and be visible for a few days then return many years in the future.

Their Bible God was once upon a time promoted as the source of knowledge about everything, Shamans and Priests all claimed to have God given knowledge about the Cosmos and all living things on the planet.
The Bible view of the Cosmos was limited to a Flat Disk Shaped Earth, covered by a Firmament Dome which consisted of two layers with water sandwiched in the middle and Heaven was on the outside of this dome with God's Throne on top (Ezekiel 1:26-28), but, this is also inviting or Begging The Question of what purpose an almighty being that could span the universe would want with a Throne??
Your guess is as good as my own!

There is absolutely no evidence for their Bible God and thus all their arguments are entirely Circular, therefore Fallacious.
Q: What is the Evidence for your God?
A: It is written in the Bible!

Q: How do you know that the Bible is Truthful?
A: Because The Bible Says It Is God Given Truth!

Though Archaeology has discovered that the Bible and it's God was created by the likes of Josiah in the 7th Century BCE.
He invented Judaism to unite his people. as he decided to use religion as a means of uniting his subjects, so he chose Yahweh to be that god and then banned all other Gods. So essentially it was Josiah who invented the Bible God and his scribes who created Genesis, Exodus, etc... or the first 5 books of the Bible (Pentateuch).

So with no validated Evidence for God, apologists have had to turn to Philosophical Arguments to attempt to prove their God Exists.

All these Arguments have been debunked by Critical Reason as Fallacious.
Such arguments are:
> Cosmological Argument: Or The First Cause Argument, they try to assert God as being the First Cause of everything, including the Universe.
Fault with this argument is What Is The First Cause of The First Cause or God?
So it is an infinitely regressive argument and asserting God as the First Cause without Question is a Special Pleading Fallacy.

More recently these Apologists, desperate to find a less Fallacious Cosmological Argument looked to the Kalam version of this argument to remove the Infinite Regress Fallacy, but still it is Fallacious, namely the Fallacy Of Equivocation it commits twice and is still a Special Pleading Fallacy.

> Teleological Argument: Or Argument for God from Design. This is the prime argument for the Intelligent Design Cults.

Essentially this is also a Special Pleading Fallacy, as Who Designed The Designer?
It is also an Argument from Ignorance as all evidence cited so far by Intelligent Design advocates has a far simpler natural explanation.

> Ontological Argument: Or can we imagine a greater being than God, if we cannot then that God must exist.

This argument is purely subjective, as many can imagine Superman being greater than God.
It is really a Fallacy brought about by the Notion that what our mind can imagine must exist, which is Plato and René Descartes concepts.
Yet realistically we cannot construct anything with our minds nor do many of the things humans conceive with their minds exist.

So this is the fallacy of False Assertions and an argument from Ignorance Fallacy.

"The fallacies of the argument are issues which a clever theologian could fix with some rewording and addition of some other premises. However, the argument can be completely broken and made laughable by simply changing "God" to "The Most Perfect Island" (or something similar). The argument remains structurally valid (that is, nothing in the symbolic formulation of the argument is incorrect), however, we come to the laughable conclusion that "The Most Perfect Island" must exist. You could also replace "God" with "Unicorns" and define "Unicorns" as "that than which no greater horse can be conceived". We now have an argument for the existence of unicorns, another mythological creature."


Apologists have essentially no Arguments left for their God that are not Fallacious in nature.

So in desperation they started to assert Presuppositional Arguments.

Such as Asserting that Nobody Can Have Reason Nor Knowledge Without God.

Which is the Ultimate Circular Reasoning Fallacy!

It is also an Equivocation Fallacy as to argue that no Knowledge can exist without God, the meaning of Knowledge needs to be switched, thus changing the meaning. Making the Argument Entirely Fallacious.
It is also just a Subjective mind game used more to throw debate opponents off guard.

Essentially, Apologists no longer have any arguments for God that hold up to Rational Criticism.

So Arguments for the Existence of the Bible God are Rationally Dead.

For an Apologist to use any of those Failed, Fallacious, Philosophical/Theological Arguments, thinking they will Prove God, would have to technically be considered as Brain Dead.

Thus those listed are Brain Dead Arguments for God.
2: Arguments Concerning The Existence Of A Divine Person (Demigod) Named Jesus Christ Who Saved Humanity By Being Crucified to remove God Imposed Original Sin.

Factually: Archaeology and Anthropology have no Evidence for Jesus Christ as actually being Divine.

There is absolutely no real evidence that can confirm Jesus performed a Single Miracle.
There is not enough evidence to satisfy any Rational Enquiry, that Jesus was actually Resurrected.

In fact: Richard Carrier's Mythicism Concept concerning the Non-Existence of Jesus Christ or that Jesus Christ was a Euhemerized character (composed from other legendary characters) has some credence.
There is not enough evidence to prove Carrier wrong.

Personally I believed Jesus existed as a normal preacher with a reasonable following, but there is no evidence that I am right either.
No genuine contemporary, first hand witness evidence to the life of Jesus Christ exists.

So essentially, Christianity has no validated basis for its existence.
The Bible story of Jesus Christ can be considered as a basis for the existence of Christianity.

But, in the same breath, they have no more claim to truth than Scientology with it's veneration of Xenu.

So essentially, Christian Apologists are Defending a Faith, that is without any Verified Basis in actual Reality for its Existence.

Thus: The only arguments Apologists can use for defending The Bible God and Christianity are Circular Fallacies.

There is no evidence outside of the Bible that is strong enough to confirm Christianity is a genuine Truthful belief system.
It has no more truthfulness than Scientology.

So Those Pushing There Apologetic Fallacies Onto The Public Through The Media and By Debating Skeptics, Are Either Deliberately Telling Lies, or are So Deluded By Their Indoctrination (mind control) That They Think Their Fallacies Are Valid.

When there is absolutely nothing Valid concerning Christianity.


There's a lot here, I'll answer what I can.

First, the model of the Earth and sky is not detailed in Ezekiel 1, that is the appearance of the throne room of God in a vision. A look at the preceding verses makes this clear. Clearly, the sky above us does not sparkle like crystal, and God's throne is not on Earth, from visual observation or Biblical reference. "Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool..." Isaiah 66:1 The Bible may refer to sunset and sunrise, but so does NASA, and they don't believe in a flat Earth, and I would be surprised to find Bible passage that called the Earth flat. The spherical Earth model has no known origin date, and the idea that the ancients universally accepted a flat Earth seems to be more of a modern myth.

Josiah made up Judaism:

If this is known from archeology, there must be hard proof of the most literal kind.

From the first six minutes of the video:
A revolutionary approach to archeology that puts more weight on certain kinds of evidence OTHER than manuscripts, for the purpose of refuting people who use the Bible to inform their basic world view so that their arguments can be neutralized in the political arena. If you go out specifically looking for something in a dig to prove a theory, that's one thing, but understand this is obviously bias. And in this case, bias that turns scientific convention and practice in archeology, that is identical at any other NON-Holy Land dig, on it's head. If you had a dig site, and an old manuscript pertaining to events that occurred on that site, you'd be a fool not to put a lot of weight on the WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HAPPENED over the pottery shards in the hole. Don't forget manuscripts are archaeological evidence, too. Rosetta Stone? Dead Sea Scrolls?

The migration of Abram had, what, 800 people at the most? (Genesis 14:14) That's not going register as a major migration in archeology, so no wonder they don't find evidence of one tent dweller when they're looking for a horde of camel raiders. Especially when he was only involved in one battle, ever. I didn't watch the video any further than this, they already admitted their new method has a social/political agenda that requires a different method to achieve the desired political/social results. Besides, most debaters won't take such a long video (or article) into account without more specific citation. 1.5 hours

"There is absolutely no evidence for their Bible God and thus all their arguments are entirely Circular, therefore Fallacious.
Q: What is the Evidence for your God?
A: It is written in the Bible!
Q: How do you know that the Bible is Truthful?
A: Because The Bible Says It Is God Given Truth!"

When has this been an important argument in Apologetics? Source please, or it's a strawman argument.

Answering the Iron Chariots article:

The article assumes that we made up God to explain what is. But a Christian already personally knows God, we didn't invent him to explain things. If you want to call it delusion, go ahead, but you have BOP to show it's delusion. If you scoff, prove to me love or inspiration exist, and I'll show you they don't exist using your own arguments.
Also, any model of the physical universe has to start with something that avoids infinite regression. Some people use the quantum field, we use God. First, we haven't seen things appearing out the quantum field that stay put, but we (Christians) personally know God, and he says he made everything. What are we going to say is the more likely origin?

The Rationalwiki article on the teleological argument is similar. We see something, so we fall back on our starting assumption to explain it, if we bother to explain it at all. Dawkins and other Atheists assume that God is non-existent, so God didn't create trees, they evolved from natural processes, because natural processes are all that there are. I see the tree, I don't say "Wow, I wonder how trees got here. Let me make up God to explain it." Though many atheists apparently assume I do. I know God, personally, and I have found him to be trustworthy. He said he made the trees to begin with.

"Factually: Archaeology and Anthropology have no Evidence for Jesus Christ as actually being Divine.

There is absolutely no real evidence that can confirm Jesus performed a Single Miracle.
There is not enough evidence to satisfy any Rational Enquiry, that Jesus was actually Resurrected."

If you're going to look for natural evidence for supernatural events, that's kind of like saying:

All that exists is matter.
All matter has magnetic properties.
Neutrons have no measurable magnetic properties.
Therefore neutrons are not matter.
Therefore neutrons don't exist.

You might laugh, but we only knew about protons and electrons until they started looking for subatomic events beyond electrical interaction.

You want to find evidence of miracles in archeology. What could you find in a hole in the ground 2000 years later that would tell you a man was cured of blindness? You're looking in the wrong place. We have four agreeing manuscripts from eye witnesses and interviews with eye witnesses who were contemporaries of Jesus. The four gospels. Manuscripts are archaeological evidence. Unless the Dead Sea Scrolls, Rosetta Stone, DaVinci sketch books, etc. are classified as non-archeological evidence. Might want to tell the people at Popular Archeology to stop wasting their time on old sheep skins, if that's the case.

One thing I haven't answered, is how do I know God personally, since so much of my argument rests on that? God is the one who created all there is, and he is also morally perfect. His moral perfection has a total balance of justice and mercy, and an intolerance of sin. He will not tolerate it in his presence. That means lying, stealing, unjustified hatred and it's resulting actions, (murder, slander, etc.), disrespect toward his righteous character, (taking the Lord's name in vain, disobedience), and wronging other people who he also created with the intent that they would be his children. (cheating on your wife, hurting those around you).
Who hasn't lied and hurt someone's feelings, stolen, or lusted after a woman who isn't your wife? This breaks the friendship with God we should have, so that's why we start off not knowing him, because we start of wanting to do all those bad, selfish things. This is why God allows us all to die, because we aren't perfect, and he won't tolerate it.

When I realized I was bad, I also realized God's justice was satisfied by Jesus' willing death penalty. He was the only person who was morally perfect, so the death penalty was undeserved, and could not stand permanent against Jesus in God's eyes, but Jesus did still take the punishment of my sin with him to the execution to rid me of it.
I was spiritually blind, and not willing to follow God before, but now the intended friendship between me and God has been restored, I see things I refused to see before.

If you want to know God, you must first come with a repentant heart, admitting to Him you are wrong and corrupted. Then he will forgive you, and you will see clearly. You can't just look for physical evidence of the supernatural, you have to come to the Supernatural on His own terms.
Debate Round No. 2


Con questions the Flat Earth description throughout the Bible.

Yes, the flat earth started in Genesis and ended in Revelations:

Genesis 1:6-8 "God created a firmament (which he named "Heaven") to divide the water on earth and the water in the sky. Do we really have a solid sky holding water over us? How the heck did we get to the moon? Does the space shuttle have a "firmament opener" on the front of it? This would explain why every time it rained in the Bible, that God had to "open the windows of heaven" (Gen. 7:1 and Isa. 24:18 are examples). These openings allowed all the water above the solid sky to leak out. Maybe we broke a window on our first space mission, and have flown out the broken window every time since."

Highlights are my own: Source:

BTW: The Hebrew word Christian apologists claim to mean Sphere in Isaiah 40:22, actually means a circular disk, like a coin.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;
"The Hebrew word that is used in Isaiah 44:22 (ח@309;ג, chug) does not at all imply a spherical earth. The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun ח@309;ג (chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְח@309;גׇה(mechugah; Isa 44:13). This term refers to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle, what we call a compass."

Excerpt: "n numerous passages, the bible claims that the earth is flat and/or rectangular. Whether or not the Bible "really" says this is often debated - but if the Bible was written by people who lived in societies who were unaware that the Earth is a more or less spherical object which orbits the sun then we would expect this ignorance to be reflected in their writings."


"Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” Only with a flat earth could tall tree be visible from “the earth's farthest bounds,” — this is impossible on a spherical earth.


Matthew 4:8
"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;" (KJV)

Again, this is not possible with a spherical Earth.

The Vault of Heaven

raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”

Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:

Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”

Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”

Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”

Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”

Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”>


In Revelations the Star Spangled Dome above the earth is also mentioned in that the stars will fall to Earth like leaves from a shaken tree. Such Naivety in Cosmology existed even then, possibly around 400CE when Revelations was finalized.

Revelations 6:13
"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind."

So even if one accepts a spherical Earth, what would be the good of having a solid Dome/Vault over a spherical Earth with stars stuck on the underside (with silly putty) so that the stars will fall to Earth when the Dome/Heaven is Shaken.

At the time the writing of the Old Testament took place around 4th Century BCE, most of the stories were copied from old Sumerian tales which existed in a time when the Earth was considered Flat.
Some Greeks hinted that the Earth may be spherical, but such news had not reached the scribes of the Bible in Babylon. Besides, it did not fit in with their worldview. So even if they heard the concepts of a Spherical Earth, they probably disputed and denied it as did the

Copernicus was threatened with Excommunication from God, by the Roman Catholic church for stating that the Earth was Spherical and not the center of the Universe.

Giordano Bruno (1548 - February 17, 1600), a.k.a. Bruno Nolano or Bruno the Nolan was an Italian philosopher, executed as a heretic.
"In works published between 1584 and 1591, Bruno enthusiastically supported Copernicanism. According to Aristotle and Plato, the universe was a finite sphere. Its ultimate limit was the primum mobile, whose diurnal rotation was conferred upon it by a transcendental God, not part of the universe, a motionless prime mover and first cause."
Bruno's concept of an infinitely expansive universe was the straw that literally had him burnt at the stake.

Yes, even in the 16th Century Christianity had the Earth as the center of the universe and denied Copernicus's spherical model, even though Pythagoras, the ancient Greeks and the Chinese apparently already knew of the Spherical Earth. If they still had flat earth geocentric universe models in the 1600s CE, it was far worse or more Naive 400 BCE.

It was these same dogmatic adherence to naive misconceptions that had Galileo threatened with torture, had his books banned and charged with heresy, where he spent the last years of his life under house arrest for supporting and furthering Copernicus's model of the universe.

Thus condemning any Apologists who claim that the Bible holds Scientific Knowledge concerning the Planet Earth.

Young Earth Creationists have no Evidence in the Bible supporting their Apologetics.
They are no more Credible than the Flat Earth Society's apologetics.
Both Apologist camps suck of Naivety and Pseudo-scientific Nonsense.

Lastly, Dealing with Apologetics supporting the Divinity of Jesus Christ and Christianity in General.
Christians cannot attack Agnostics and Atheists for denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
Simply because there are no Contemporary Eye Witness Testimonies for the Life and Activities of Jesus Christ. Nobody who witnessed his so called miracles, his preaching nor his death and presumed resurrection wrote anything down and the earliest accounts of Jesus Christ arrived no sooner than 20 years after his death in Saul's writings and another decade later in the first Gospels.
By this time if Jesus lived he would have been in his mid 60s in a time when the average life expectancy was around 45 years.
So most probably all the disciples had died before the first Gospel was put to writing and no disciples existed at the time of the other 3 Synoptic Gospels, which Mark appeared to be a rough copy of Matthew, but the rest of the Gospels depict a totally different Jesus Christ.

Just one instant of many Gospel discrepancies concerning Jesus was the character of Jesus Christ:
For Instance:
In Mark, Jesus was a quiet, reserved, humble man who rarely boasted about himself.
Yet in the Gospel according to John, Jesus was an arrogant and narcissistic man who regularly boasted about himself.
So any direct assertion that Jesus was divine by Apologists is Fallacious as there is no Earthly evidence for the Divinity of Jesus.

All external evidence for Jesus does not support the resurrection story, and there is no archaeological evidence to support the myths within the Bible.

Scientifically and Rationally (Anthropologically): There is as much evidence for the miracles of Gandalf than there is for the miracles of Jesus Christ.

So Apologists are asserting circular arguments to support the miracles of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

As the only evidence supporting those miracles is in the Bible and how do we know that the scripture is truthful, why? It says so in the Bible.

Thus a totally fallacious Tautology.

Many apologists who realize that all Apologetic arguments mentioned in my last round are Fallacious, turn to Personal Experience Of God as their Proof for God's existence.
For example: William Lane Craig, who when asked if anything could ever change his mind that God exists, he states an absolute NO!
Because his personal experience has revealed that God exists to himself.

Argument from personal experience it is in itself Circular Reasoning.
1: God exists.
2: How do you know?
3: God's voice/vision told me so!
4: How do you know it was not a Hallucination?
5: God told me he was real, or the vision appeared very real!

Possibly the single worse Tautological argument for God EVER!

But, it only goes to show that in this age of Information, Apologists are Desperate to find something to pin on God to support their Blind Faith.

Those that make claims that Genesis is truth and Evidence Exists to Prove Jesus really was Resurrected or more likely ardent Liars, as they are Falsehoods.
Those that believe strongly in and push their Personal Experience publicly are more likely Deluded Narcissists.

Thanks Con:
Have Fun!



The Firmament:

“mid-13c., from Latin firmamentum "firmament," literally "a support or strengthening," from firmus "firm" (see firm (adj.)), used in Vulgate to translate Greek stereoma "firm or solid structure," which translated Hebrew raqia, a word used of both the vault of the sky and the floor of the earth in the Old Testament, probably literally "expanse," from raqa "to spread out," but in Syriac meaning "to make firm or solid," hence the erroneous translation.”

The original Hebrew meant expanse, not anything solid. Whether the water above the Earth referred to clouds or another layer of water above that, we can only speculate, but the sky doesn't need to be solid to hold up much water. It happens anyway, they're called clouds. Low pressure fronts break a
“window” through the barrier and allow rain to fall down from where it is stored in clouds.

Flat Earth:

As far as the flat Earth thing, which much time is spent on, Daniel 4:10 is a dream full of symbols, not a planetary model, in which the king (Nebuchadnezzar) is a tree, the people of the world are animals, and the tree's roots were bound with metal shakles. If a human king is symbolized by a tree, are we supposed to conclude he was actually a tree? No. Daniel explains the symbolism as such. Why take symbolism which is plainly explained as such, and try to make the words as a cosmological model?

Matthew 4:8 is a different situation describing real events. We've already got Jesus, the Devil (a purely supernatural being), and teleportation from the desert, to the roof of the Temple, to a mountain top. If the Devil existed, and could teleport the Son of God to anywhere on the Earth, why would it be such a jump to believe he could show you images of all the kingdoms of the Earth at the same time? A claim that none of this happened because the supernatural doesn't exist would be more fitting than complaining this describes a flat Earth. But this claim is unverifiable using methods most Secular Naturalists would accept. Pro already agreed he has the BOP to prove a negative by showing the Bible and Christianity isn't true. I think most experienced Atheists would agree, proving the supernatural doesn't exist is a fool's errand, because only natural evidence is accepted by them.

Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing. -accurate cosmology.

As far as the circle references, there is a great deal of debate about whether it actually means sphere or not. Like “I packed dishes in a square box” doesn't mean a flat square box, but a cube. I don't know enough about Hebrew to determine which argument is correct, nor do I have time to learn for this debate, but I could post links that agree with the sphere argument from pro-sphere articles, just as Pro has posted links to pro-circle articles. In the end most people that don't know Hebrew will assume the claim that supports what they think they know is the correct claim. If you do know Hebrew, and you are planning on voting, remember to take into account poetic imagery and literal context.

Revelation 6:13, the word translated “stars” was the generic for any astronomical object. The actual stars are still in their places later in the book when 1/3 of them are darkened.

Job 37:15

Do you know how God controls the clouds
and makes his lightning flash?
Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?

  1. Elihu is not Hebrew, he's Buzite, a nephew of Abraham, who was not Hebrew either, but the ancestor of the Hebrews. (Gen. 22:20-22)

  2. In Job, Elihu is talking about how he doesn't know how nature works, not how it works.

16th Century denial of Heliocentrism, etc., by the Catholic Church:

The Catholic Church is described in the Bible:

“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, (Oath of poverty, Mr. Pope?) whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry (clergy, monastic orders) and order them to abstain from certain foods(fish only on Friday!)...” -1 Timothy 4

Doesn't surprise me that if they're against steak on Friday, they'd be against Heliocentrism in the past.

No reliable eye-witness accounts:

Pro argues that 10 years is too long a span of time to wait to write down life experiences after they happen. I will leave judgment of this up to the voters.

Tacitus-Annals, Book 15

Tacitus was a Roman Senator who wrote Book 15 in 109 AD about events in the Empire between 62-65 AD. This is considered the first authentic non-Christian account of Christ and the Church. Christians were well known and numerous in the Capital by 62 AD, and Tacitus agrees, in summary, with the gospels, that Christ lived in Judea, and was executed at the hand of Pontius Pilate, but maintained a growing following after the execution.

It does not matter the average life expectancy was only 45, no one is arguing Jesus was still on Earth when the gospels were written. Average life expectancy does not mean everyone croaks at 45. It's just an average taking into account child deaths and centenarians. Why is it unreasonable to conclude they could have lived to 60 and written down accounts from their lives when they were 60?

The discrepancies between the gospels are no more paradoxical than a First Ladies' account of her husband, a member of the press writing about the President, and the President's father writing about him.

Matthew emphasized the Royalty of Jesus through God and the line of David, since the letter was addressed to Jews, and that was what they were concerned with in the Messiah. In Matthew, the destruction of the Temple (70 AD) was predicted, and mentioned exclusively as a future event. A prophesy without bragging of the fulfillment indicates a pre-70 AD authorship.

Mark was written to Gentile Romans, who would have little concern with blood line, or squabbles between Jewish sects. Mark was the same who accompanied Paul part way on one of his missionary journeys, and so would have known Peter and other disciples. This letter emphasized the actions, rather than words of Christ, to show Christ the servant.

Luke was also targeted toward Gentiles, but written by Luke, also a friend of Paul who accompanied him on a missionary journey. He was a physician, (Colosians 4:14) who wrote the letter as an exhaustive account of the life of Christ (Luke 1:1-4). Being present in the early church, he would have had access to many who knew Jesus, certainly Peter and John.

John emphasized his close friendship with Christ.

Objections to any historical document from antiquity should be leveled carefully. For one thing, they are very rare, and valuable, with all the ancient library burnings and whatnot, records are more useful than piecing together buried garbage and houses, and when a document is found, it is not taken lightly, found in the Holy Land or not.

Personal experiences:

Many apologists who realize that all Apologetic arguments mentioned in my last round are Fallacious, turn to Personal Experience Of God as their Proof for God's existence.”

Here, Pro does not understand my position, and inflates the value of his own. I know very well any person's personal experience is not likely to convince another unless they are very close. What I was pointing out is that there are backwards assumptions amongst Atheists and Agnostics in some popular ideas, like we don't know where X natural phenomena came from, so we made up a religion. If some reasonable person happens to, against all scientific knowledge, see a Woolly Mammoth cross their path while driving through Siberia in a blizzard, they may have no tangible proof, but they will believe. They may also know that no one else will be convinced. That may drive them to stay quiet, or they may tell others regardless. This is the position of the Christian when it comes to personal experience. Not all real events can be proven to others.

He also claims to have some kind of Special Knowledge of the internal mental effects of his arguments on other people's minds: He somehow knows apologists know that he is right, they just haven't admitted it to him.

We don't just believe the Bible without reason. As I have shown in this debate, it is a historically accurate book, even if you don't believe in the supernatural part.

In Conclusion:

Sagey is a self-admitted troll. (See comment section.

Ha Ha!

Oops my troll t-shirt is showing?

Better hide it under my I'm a nice boy jacket.

This doesn't mean he can't make serious arguments, but it does mean that he puts being an irritation above making serious arguments. Examine his arguments carefully.

Pro has completely dropped objections to the OT being written at an earlier date after I pointed out the twisted political/pseudo-scientific practices of Israel whats-his-name and Mr. Silberman. (Can't tell names anymore, the video has been blocked for Copyright violation, not Pro's fault.)

Pro demanded archeological evidence of Divinity of Christ from archeology, or rather, claimed there was none. A demand of physical evidence of non-physical traits of a person in the past.

Pro claims special knowledge of the private motivations of others.

Pro accepted Burden of Proof. Did he reasonably prove the Bible and Christianity is inaccurate, and therefore apologists are delusional or liars, with the arguments he made? Remember, even if a position were true, that does not mean every argument can support it.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 3
88 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FantumHeist 3 years ago
Christianity is false hope ever thought about what it would be like to die I have a friend of mine died right in front of me as I looked into his eye's I seen no God or Heaven only darkness and a blank stare telling me when I die all there is , is a void of darkness ever urging you to die some it can take what left of you into the cold and muddy ground for eternity
Posted by Zmax15 3 years ago
I would vote, though it seems I'm incapable so long as I've not given my phone number, and, in the words of some guy that doesn't like to swear for reasons, I guess, "F- that noise." Here's what I would say if I could, and I'd appreciate anyone willing to put it in on my behalf, though I doubt that happening at all.


I believe Pro won on the argumentation and delivery of their case. They provided a number of links, all supporting their case, to which the opponent only replied with the old "I have faith." A statement of blind belief without or in contradiction to the facts is poor reasoning and, in such form as a debate, bad form. Now, the Pro did a number of things wrong which I must address. First, the debate was over Christian apologists, and all/the majority of the examples he cited were of biblical literalists, and/or young-earth creationists. These stances can very easily be disproven, and he spent too much of his time arguing the flat earth, something a great deal of young-earthers have renounced, and don't believe. He relied a bit too much on his links and videos, rather than effectively defeating the opponents arguments. Lastly, WOA to the Con, don't call your opponent a troll. Admittance or not, joking or not, that's bad posture, and you should be facing his arguments, not himself.

Also, outside of that character limit, the burden of proof was not for the nonexistence of god, but for the beliefs, and/or intelligence apologists. Those given, young-earthers, flat-earthers, and other such literalists can easily be written off, and quite often are by a great deal of modern Christians.
Posted by CountCheechula 3 years ago
No such thing as thing as christian apologists. We apologize for nothing.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
The cosmological argument centers on Creation from nothing.

Cosmology has never stated that before the universe there was nothing at all.

It only states that at point zero, the universe did not exist since there is no internal time inside a point.

Outside our Universe at point zero, space time existed, just no time in our universe until a microsecond after point zero.
Our universe likely started as a black hole.
There is no time inside a black hole, but external to that black hole, space time exists.

Thus Creationist's Creation ex-nihilo is Fallacious and unsupported.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
LOL, it appears Andymcstab is ignorant of the entire debate, evidently a My-Side Bias vote!

It doesn't center on the obvious fallaciousness of the Cosmological Argument, but on all Apologetics which are entirely Fallacious.

Apologetics has nothing that is not entirely Fallacious.

That is why they insist on playing word games like the Presuppositional arguments instead of getting real non-fallacious arguments.

Because they have no arguments that are not Fallacious.
Posted by joning.78 3 years ago
It is okey, you are just 100 percent like Thomas, one of the deciple of Jesus . GBU
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
I'm a rationalist, I go where a rational consideration of evidences take me.
For me to believe in God, there must be tangible, rational, verifiable evidence for it.
Personal experiences are like leaves in a wind, they blow away when the owners die and there is nothing solid for anybody to really believe in.
Posted by joning.78 3 years ago
I think i should go to church again. We are all family yeah in church. And you should buddy.... many thanks.. GBU
Posted by joning.78 3 years ago
You should try talk to God, i mean the true God that no one can prove Him. Only He himself can prove to you everything. We all know true God exist yeah! Thanks.
Posted by joning.78 3 years ago
Not absolute right when quiet. Not absolute right when sounding. I c probably no answer. In this case in wordy. Excellent! Thank you very much for your opinion. I got something in mind now. So much thanks sincerely. My word for you: dont angry to fast, other people might be right and ourseld might be wrong. Just becaue you dont like to hear they are talking to you. Just as once i dont lke to hear from my parent. But after that i know i should hear from them and should talk with them more time. Not to be alone. May God bless you too. Nice talk with you. I dont want to be live alone in this world and next world :)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by AdamKG 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: I understand this may have been a troll debate, but I will treat it seriously. Pro largely fails his BoP and does not seem seem to be very well researched on the topic. Pro at first seemed somewhat convincing in round two (my own personal dislike for Christian apologists may have played a part), but his arguments ultimately fail to fully persuade me. Con clearly wins this debate.
Vote Placed by neutral 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: BOP is to definitively prove there is no God, not rip things out of context to prove a few inaccuracies. Pro failed in the BOP.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: if this was really troll, sagey wins. If not, skynet wins. But we really don't know if this was really outright troll debate...anyhow, the arguments fall short against serious arguments, so con wins
Vote Placed by andymcstab 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Sagey is clearly trolling. Skynet handles him well enough. Sageys analysis of the cosmological argument is either hilariously ignorant or intentionally dishonest. Previous experience suggests the latter for me.