The Instigator
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
Multi-Wargasm
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible is Perfect.

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 7 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,520 times Debate No: 41774
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (7)

 

Mikal

Con

Resolution : The bible is perfect ( or without error), and all the events in it should be considered credible, viable, and empirical sources. Pro is acknowledging the bible should be read literally and not metaphorically and that all the stories and accounts in the bible are true.

We are taking on a shared BOP.

Rules

(1) Forfeit of a round will result in the loss of a conduct point. Forfeit of both rounds will result in a full 7 point win for the opposite contender.
(2) No new evidence shall be presented in the last round because that is meant for rebuttals and crystallizing points.
(3) Evidence should be cited
(4) Valid RFDs must be provided for votes.
(5) 48 hour argument time
(6) 10,000 word limit
(7) Failure from Pro to type "no round as agreed upon" in the last round will be considered a concession and result in his/her loss by a full 7 points, seeing as how this will give him/her an extra round.

Structure

Me

R1: Position and rules
R2: Opening Argument no rebuttals
R3 : Rebuttals, re building previous points, and closing arguments

Adversary

R1: Opening Arguments
R2 : Rebuttals, re building previous points, and closing arguments
R3 : Shall type "no round as agreed upon"


Multi-Wargasm

Pro

Con has granted me the Bible as the main, if not, only source of evidence i must consider in formulating an argument. I must prove that it is to be read literally and to the effect that all the events in it should be considered credible, viable and empirical sources. As such, I must consider that all aspects of it are true and perfect by my own standards. What I can, therefore, state, without any doubt then, is that an all powerful God is liable to break the laws of science, as he does in the Bible, and, therefore, con must accept that any evidence to the contrary was just the work of God's science breaking power. I might hasten to add that this is a debate on the Bible and thus, I have no choice, but to accept God as it stipulates. Thus, any argument you may make I can refute with God's power.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Con

*FACEPALM*

I am giving up on this debate hence forth. As stated in R1 pro acknowledges that all accounts in the bible are historically accurate and should be considered empircal evidence.

Since the first round is not for rebuttals, I am just going to start with a basic history lesson and present 1 contention. I would delve deeper, but I already see this being a flop of a debate.


The Flood


The flood in the bible quite possibly could have been taken from other accounts within history. The bible claims that is literally the truth, and most people believe this happened in the way that the bible has described. Let us view some facts. Mesopotamia is the first civilization ever to exist[1]. In this civilization the first novel in history was written and it was called The Epic of Gilgamesh[2]. In this Novel the accounts of the flood in the book of Genesis, happen almost word for word. There are different characters and different Gods in The Epic of Gilgamesh but it is essentially the same story in the bible. For a full comparison of the Book of Genesis and The Epic of Gilgamesh see [3].

Since Mesopotamia birthed every civilization after it, the Hebrews and Jews (whom wrote the bible) were not even around at the time the book was written. The epic pre dated the birth of their civilization, yet the story in the bible is literally almost the same story word for word. The only logical explanation for this, is that the accounts in the bible are false and were taken from the epic novel when cultures were being mixed and spread.

In Closing

Just reviewing this one point we can see the accounts in the bible do not line up with history. Even if there had been a flood which some evidence supports, the accounts would have occurred in the manner in which the bible described. Since Mesopotamia was the first civilization and the flood according to the bible occurred centuries after this, we can conclude the bible is inaccurate and not empirical.


[1] http://www.historiasiglo20.org...
[2] http://andyrossagency.wordpress.com...
[3] http://www.icr.org...
Multi-Wargasm

Pro

No doubt I personally agree with much of what con has said, but the fact remains that should this debate had been taken by an evangelical Christian, this would be the stance that they could be likely to take. I remind con that the can still make an argument against me, but would actually have to base the argument on my terms and not theirs, using the actual content of the Bible to refute its own premise.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Con

Key Points

(1) Pro agreed and conceded to all my points
(2) Pro dropped all of my points because he agreed to them
(3) He offered no rebuttals


Rebuttal

Con has made the case that the bible is true by his own standards, this is a failed case. Empirical evidence is justifiable and verifiable evidence by a multitude of standards.

Example : CMBR is not just empirical evidence because penzsias and wilson said it existed. It is empirical because anyone with the right equipment and knowledge can look up and verify it for the time being.

The same can be said with facts and events in history. How do we know WW2 actually happened? Because there are thousands upon thousands of texts, literature, and footage that document it. The bible is more difficult than this because of its age, but the same logic applies. If (x) would have happened, such as the miracles Christ performed. Secular scholars in that time would have noted this, and took the time to write it about. This did not happen, the bible is its only source of evidence and therefore not accurate .

Just because my adversary believes that his God could break the laws of science, does make this an empirical fact. It makes it a personal fact that is relevant to his own belief. The fact is there is no historical or empirical evidence to support any of his claims, other than making his own personal assertion. For Pros case to be true, he must provide empirical evidence to shown that God can break the laws of science and nature and manipulate our thoughts, and for that to be true, he must first prove a God. He has failed to do all of the above.

In Closing

Throughout history we can see that the bible does not line up with factual historical accounts of events that transpired. Therefore the most logical conclusion is to assume the bible is not perfect.

Multi-Wargasm

Pro

Oh yes, personally I do agree, but not within the paradigms of the debate. I thus, must, debate the point. I just believed that the debate was a flop, as you were saying. Such underhand tactics are effective, but unappreciated. I should of left a comment in the debate.

However, although the Bible does not line up with history on a historical level, con has set me limits in regards to accepting the Bible as Perfect and I, must, therefore, regard it as such, stating that Biblical history was liable to be changed by God. I must also note, that this is not by my own standards, as con is completely missing the point of the motion, by the points I have already argued. Empirical evidence, by the Bible's standards, can be changed by God, because of historical discrepancies. Penzias and Wilson have little say against him. In addition, historical evidence is very subject to human flaws, so the historical evidence that con has mentioned is also subject to this flaw. The pursuit of history is making sense of these flaws with its differing academic opinions and, thus, there is always an inherent doubt in it.

Breaking the laws of science and existence are within God's paradigms, so it cannot be explained with empirical fact. Again, con has committed the fallacy that I base this on my own belief, when in reality, I am basing it on the Holy Book that con has provided me as my only source of truth. I must assume it is perfect or else the debate is flawed and from its perfection I must assume that God can do anything. Although empirical and historical evidence are valid, it could only be in the context that they support my point and any discrepancy is God's work. Again, this is because I must assume that the Bible is the truth and in that truth we see that God has already proved his divinity with miracles, such as virgin births, the plagues of Egypt, parting the Red Sea with the force essentially. The list goes on, turning water into wine and magicking up fish, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven. All these cannot be explained by science, although a few could be rationalised. Gamorrah and Sodom being another. What we can see is that under the premise of the motion, is that the Bible is perfect for the fact that, if its God is all powerful, many of this empirical knowledge could be 'godified'.

In closing, I would like the voters to note that this is not a theological debate. This is con trying to arrogantly display his atheistic beliefs, to the effect of not considering a motion on its own theological terms. Only by empirical and historical evidence, which although is a logical route, can easily be refuted by an all powerful God. The main fallacy is that he makes the assumption that God is not of its own definition and is fully aware of the miracles what the Bible portends. On this basis alone, God can change reality so that their are discrepancies. I would of wondered if con would question as to why God would do this, but it is merely because he is launching his argument from his own subjective point of view and not actually considering the motion as a whole. Indeed, he asks for evidence of God. Am I to assume that God does not exist and yet consider the Bible to be perfect? Con's stupefying argument implies this and although he sets the paradigms that the Bible must follow empirical and historical evidence, he will not acknowledge that these paradigms could easily be hurdled by an all powerful God. The only valid argument con can make is my concessions in round 2, but these were not in the regards of the debate, but in the mistake that it was a flop. I shall keep this in mind. If Con would like to debate me on the existence of God, I would happily debate him.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
One funny aspect of the mythical flood is the ending with a rainbow.
A rainbow means it is still raining, because you cannot get a rainbow without rain.
It's simply looking at rain with the sun behind you that makes the rainbow.
So it was raining at the end of the flood. The goat herders who wrote Genesis had no idea of what a rainbow was and how it forms.
Rainbows would naturally have occurred during and before the mythical downpour that supposedly created the flood that never was.
As many civilizations lived right through the flood period without even getting wet.
In Australia, the land remained dry and parched and Aboriginals wandered the land without suffering a single loss, same for most of Persian and African communities.
The only people evidently affected by this flood were those living in Mesopotamia.
Yet somebody survived standing on the top of a temple where they inscribed on stone their experience, it is likely from this inscription being passed on in tales that Moses/Mosheh, derived the myth.
Posted by OtakuJordan 2 years ago
OtakuJordan
1. He is presenting evidence of a massive flood, not an ark.
2. The flood he is talking about was not global. "The theory, the Guardian reports, is that a rising Mediterranean Sea pushed a channel through what is now the Bosphorus, submerging the original shoreline of the Black Sea in a deluge flowing at about 200 times the volume of Niagara Falls and extending out for 100,000 square miles."

This is evidence for a large, though not global, flood that happened 12,000 (not 6,000 or 10,000) years ago and became the root of the flood myths in ancient cultures. This is not "proof" that Noah's flood happened.
Posted by jesusfreak22 2 years ago
jesusfreak22
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
This shows that the flood happened. I had a better source, but can't seem to find it. Will comment again if I do!
Posted by chengste 2 years ago
chengste
if pro would truly like to debate this I would be intrested, I would need the full 72 hours per round
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Watch the interview with Bill Maher. It is on youtube.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome project, is a theistic evolutionist. Source, please, for your claim that he believes the Garden of Eden to be literal.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
So Pro opens with, wait.... what? So close, I'm starting to think this is not going to happen.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Almost clicked to accept. Then I realized I'd be pro :). And yes, your structure is so harsh it's abusive.
Posted by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
The regulations in this debate are harsh. Personally, I struggle to think of a single ancient philosophical text that doesn't have metaphors.
Posted by Agnosticgirl 3 years ago
Agnosticgirl
Well I don't know about debating but the Bible is definitely not perfect.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by jesusfreak22 2 years ago
jesusfreak22
MikalMulti-WargasmTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: While I 100% believe in the Bible, Pro did not seem to know what to do in this debate.
Vote Placed by noprisu 2 years ago
noprisu
MikalMulti-WargasmTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Failure to follow the rules stated in R1 by Pro. Automatic forfeiture of all seven points to Con.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 2 years ago
ClassicRobert
MikalMulti-WargasmTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: "Failure from Pro to type "no round as agreed upon" in the last round will be considered a concession and result in his/her loss by a full 7 points, seeing as how this will give him/her an extra round." This condition was not met by Pro, so Pro forfeits all points.
Vote Placed by AndrewB686 2 years ago
AndrewB686
MikalMulti-WargasmTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to acknowledge the stipulations set in R1 by con, thus he forfeits conduct. He also presented the majority of his argument, a very poor one, in the last round. His argument rests on a priori knowledge of god being immutable and omnipotent, thus making any counterevidence to the claims of the bible fallible in nature. This was an ineffective way to argue the resolution, con wins easily.
Vote Placed by 2-D 2 years ago
2-D
MikalMulti-WargasmTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes a 7 point loss by breaking rule (7). Pro essentially agrees with Con then attempts to exploit a loophole that didn't exist in the resolution. He simply argues that the bible is internally consistent with it's own claims. This has nothing to do with the perfection of the bible with respect to reality.
Vote Placed by yay842 2 years ago
yay842
MikalMulti-WargasmTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not follow the criteria of Con's rules in round 1
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
MikalMulti-WargasmTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Failure from Pro to type "no round as agreed upon" in the last round will be considered a concession and result in his/her loss by a full 7 points, seeing as how this will give him/her an extra round. Pro gave full forfeit due to the rules.