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

The Bible Is True

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 806 times Debate No: 28922
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




The Christian bible is undeniably true.

First of all, we need to seriously think about how existence began, or could have began. This question, in of itself, is rather intuitive. How could something arise from nothing? Unless a creator existed, there's no reason to think that anything we see around us could actually exist! Further more, if one looks at all the order and precision in the universe, for anyone to think that is "just happened" is kinda ridiculous don't you think? I mean, just think about how precise the conditions have to be on earth in order to have life on earth. Mathematically, the chances of that happening are indescribably low.

So it's obvious someone had to create the universe. That person would be the Christian god.


The flood is something which is scientifically plausible, and something for which there is strong evidence for. Consider, for instance, that across the globe, several cultures have stories of a great flood occurring. So many people talking about the calamity wouldn't just happen! They must be referencing a real event. Also, a lot of our plant life, and the earliest remnants of human civilization, can be traced back to only about 5,000 years ago, which supports the dating of the flood's occurance.

There's also the account of Jesus's life, for which their are writings from other countries, which talk about him. so he must have been a real person. And we know his followers were real too. In fact, all of Jesus's disciples have records of their death, and they all died (aside from one) because they were preaching about Jesus being God. Why would a group of people go to their deaths, for a lie? It doesn't make any logical sense!

There's a lot more I could say, but I'll leave my opponent with that, since it's a hefty burden for them to counter.


I would like to thank you for beginning this debate. As there is no clearly defined resolution, I would like to propose the resolution to be: “Resolved: On balance of probability, the Bible is probably the Word of God.”

Probably is to be defined as more likely than not. I also assume we are taking a literalist approach at interpreting the Bible. As such, I am going to break my opening arguments into two sections: First, I would like to refute my opponent’s arguments, and then proceed to create my own arguments against the Biblical God.

Pro 1: The Existence of the Universe

First, my opponent makes the false dichotomy fallacy: She assumes that because there is a God, then that God must be the Christian God. However, there are thousands of other possible “gods” out there: Allah, Zeus, Osiris, Yahweh[1], and all the other gods that were once worshiped. Therefore, I must begin asking that even if you prove that god exists (you haven’t), then why does it have to be your God?

The rest of my opponent’s argument appears to be a mixture of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument. I request that my opponent expands on the argument in the next round as it is difficult understanding what my opponent is trying to prove.

Pro 2: Noah’s Flood

My opponent writes, “The flood [sic] is something which is scientifically plausible, and something for which there is strong evidence for.” I am going to break this down into two sections: First, I’ll show how the Flood is not plausible, then I will proceed to refute the argument in favor of the Flood.

The Impossible Flood

Back in August of 2012, I wrote an essay entitled Noah’s Boat Doesn’t Float[2] in which I debunk the Flood myth. To see the sources from this section, please go to the URL provided in the reference section.

First, the boat was too big to be able to float on water, and secondly, the boat was too small in order to hold samples of every living species that the Bible claims happened.

“It [The Ark] is too big, because before the invention of steel, the wooden ark of Noah simply could not have been structurally sound and was thus unseaworthy. The longest wooden ship ever built (i.e. historically verified) was the USS Wyoming. This vessel, which was, at 110 meters long, a full 50% shorter than Noah’s ark, was found to be so unstable that it could only be used for short coastal hauls to avoid rough conditions further out in the sea. The huge structural stresses that developed in the USS Wyoming made the ship sag and, well, it leaked. Water thus had to be pumped out continuously to prevent the ship from sinking. Now, here we have Noah’s ark, built with wood, before the invention of steel and hydraulic pumps, undergoing the turbulent conditions of the flood unscathed. It is simply an engineering impossibility.”

Second, genetic erosion would have wiped out most of the species. I could go on, but I want to conserve room.

Do Widespread Myths Indicate a Flood?

My opponent writes, “[A]cross the globe, several cultures have stories of a great flood [sic] occurring. So many people talking about the calamity wouldn’t just happen! They must be referencing a real event.”

My opponent’s statement is bare assertion – with no reason given for his conclusion. Although myths of a Global Flood are quite common, they are distinct and quite different. For example[3]:

  1. 1. Reasons for the Flood: Almost no story gives a reason for the Flood
  2. 2. Who survived: Almost none have a family of eight surviving
  3. 3. What they took: In several myths, the Flood was abrupt without warning and had very little time to save things
  4. 4. How they survived: Was it in a boat? Did they go to higher ground? These are contradicted in a lot of Flood myths.
  5. 5. What did they do afterwards: Few feature any type of sacrifice after the Flood.

Moreover, there are also several cultures without a Flood myth. Does that mean a Global Flood to the magnitude of the Biblical Flood never happened?

Civilization Tracings

My opponent writes, “Also, a lot of our plant life, and the earliest remnants of human civilization, can be traced back to only about 5,000 years ago, which supports the dating of the flood’s occurance [sic].”

This is utterly false. Indian civilization, and many others, can be traced back well beyond 5,000 years ago – totally uninterrupted by a Global Catastrophe.[4]

Jesus’ Existence

Yes, Jesus existed – what’s your point? That certainly doesn’t prove that he was God. There have been many people, such as Joseph Smith[5] Chat were assassinated and martyred for their faith. That does not make their religion right.

Richard Carrier notes in Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire[6]:

The most successful of these "tricksters" appears to be "the Egyptian" who led a flock of 30,000 believers around Palestine (Jewish War, 2.261-2; Paul is mistaken for him by a Roman officer in Acts 21:38). This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word (Jewish Antiquities, 20.170), yet it took a massacre at the hands of Roman troops to finally instill doubt in his followers.”

Moreover, today we see Seventh Day Adventism and Jehovah’s Witness thrive – even after their cults have time and time again failed at predicting the end of the world.

Now, I would like to move onto my own arguments – arguments against the Bible.

Con 1: Failed Prophecies

P1: If the Bible is God’s Word, then there would be no false prophecies within the text – i.e., there would be no prophecies given by God that have since been shown to have not occurred and is impossible for these events to be fulfilled today.
P2: There are numerous such prophecies.
C: Therefore, the Bible is Not God’s Word

Deuteronomy tells us that one of the ways to see if a prophet is truly from God is if his prophecies fail – if they do, they were not the words of God. Here are some of these failed prophecies.

Prophecy Regarding Egypt

Ezekiel 29:8-12 “...thus says the Lord God...and the land of Egypt shall be a desolation and a foot of man shall pass through it and no foot of beast shall past through it; it shall be uninhabited for forty years. And I will make the city of Egypt desolate in the midst of desolated countries; and her cities shall be desolated forty years... I will scatter Egyptian among the nations, and disperse them through the countries.”

Unfortunately, Ezekiel’s prophecy failed:[7]

  1. 1. Egypt has never been desolate
  2. 2. Men always walked through it
  3. 3. There was no Egyptian exile
  4. 4. Egypt has never been a desolated countries surrounded by more desolated countries.

Also Ezekiel 29:20 “I have given him [Nebuchadnezzar] the land of Egypt as his recompense for which he has laboured, because they worked for me, says the Lord God.”

Unfortunately, Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt.[8]

I rest my case.

[1] Note, this is the Jewish God. I am using the Jewish and Christian Gods as separate beings because of stark contradictions between the modern day Jewish interpretation of “God” and the Christian interpretation.

[2] This essay is found at

[3] For a collection of Flood Myths, see

[8] Ibid.

Debate Round No. 1


Eve13 forfeited this round.


Extend arguments
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was the same, and both had trivial typos. Con countered all of Pro's arguments, and Pro forfeited the second round. Con used far more sources of far better reliability than Pro. Wish Pro hadn't forfeited, though, and that there were more rounds; this could have been a lively and interesting debate!