The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
mikesully99
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

The Bible is an Inconsistent Document & Has No Truth Value on Inconsistent Subjects

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,513 times Debate No: 6092
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (8)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that the Bible is an inconsistent document, historically, scientifically, and logically (with itself) and is thus useless for discovery of truth. I submit as a premise to the resolution that any inconsistent document is by nature of its inconsistency useless when regarding truth value.

*******************

Historic Inconsistency

GE 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
FACT - There is no evidence to support this.

Gen 7:19 Higher and higher above the earth rose the waters, until all the highest mountains everywhere were submerged,
FACT - This never occurred, although there is evidence that the Middle East flooded at one point in time.

2 Sam 24:9 "Joab then reported to the king the number of people registered: in Israel, eight hundred thousand men fit for military service; in Judah, five hundred thousand."
1 Chr 21:5 "Joab reported the result of the census to David: of men capable of wielding a sword, there were in all Israel one million one hundred thousand, and in Judah four hundred and seventy thousand."

Scientific Inconsistency

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
FACT - The ark was far too small to hold all the animals, and two of each does not constitute a viable genetic population.

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
FACT - Hares and rabbits do not chew their cud.

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
FACT - Serpents do not eat dirt.

GE 1:29 God also said: "See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;
FACT - This would include several poisonous plants such as hemlock & nightshade.

Gen 7:6 Noah was six hundred years old when the flood waters came upon the earth.
FACT - Humans rarely live past 100, and none have ever lived to 600.

Logical Inconsistency

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

ACT 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."
MAT 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

**************************

Obviously the text is inconsistent. An inconsistent text can have no truth value on the subjects that it is inconsistent about. While portions of the Bible may have actual truth value concerning various aspects of science & history, much of the document is simply and blatantly incorrect. The internal inconsistency of the Bible simply adds to it's lack of truth value overall.

I submit that this document is inconsistent, has no truth value on certain subjects, and little truth value for anything else beyond religious matters. Even on religious matters, internal inconsistency renders the document suspect at best.
mikesully99

Con

ahhh this is my first time on this site and i accidently clicked accept debate or something like that :( sorry, can someone help me im soooooo sorry
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Sigh... why does this one debate seem cursed with people who do not actually want to debate it?

I'm not sure if you CAN forfeit it now after you've typed something into the argument section.
mikesully99

Con

mikesully99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Oh yes... again... sigh. You could at least TRY.
mikesully99

Con

i agree with the resolution though. the bible was written by people, and made mistakes or changed up what was told to them by god (if he exsists) or however they got their information.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Really? She forfeited it? Come on now...
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
well yes I know that!
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
M V ~M and P V Q are two different types of "or" lol.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Sigh... we'll agree to disagree on omnipotence being confined by logic... or maybe we'll have an epic debate on it.

We also seem to be in agreement about (M v ~M)... however, many of the pairs in my argument are of that type - I'm not arguing for either of them, just stating that their truth value is indeterminate. Most of the other arguments I provide here are:

(P V Q)
~P
---------
:. Q

Quite elementary - either the Bible is correct or fact is correct. Hmm.....
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"But breaking the confines of logic is a largely semantic confinement anyway."
Semantic or not, it's still a confinement, and means you need to define God differently before arguing for him :D.

"I think a better argument against the "omnipotence" of God is that God cannot make it the case that I have never existed - for to do so presupposes I exist."

If two arguments are equally true, there is no grounds for saying one is better than the other :d.

"You persist in stating that (M v ~M) is not indeterminate, yet you call it "the indeterminacy."

No, the indeterminacy is what you postulated as a consequence of it.

I think, perhaps, though, that you're misunderstanding my statement. If you state M V ~M, and you know nothing else, it's obviously indeterminate-- but, if you do happen to know M, M V ~M is still the case and yet the status of M is not indeterminate. Indeterminacy does not follow from the statement M V ~M, M V ~M is simply a quality that is true of all statements in standard logic-- all statements are either true or they are false, even when you know they are true or you know they are false. Whether something is indeterminate is unrelated to the statement M V ~M.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
But breaking the confines of logic is a largely semantic confinement anyway. It can't be the case that God could create a married bachelor - that doesn't even make sense. It's not impossible per se - it's just nonsensical. I think a better argument against the "omnipotence" of God is that God cannot make it the case that I have never existed - for to do so presupposes I exist.

You persist in stating that (M v ~M) is not indeterminate, yet you call it "the indeterminacy." Consider the following:

(M v ~M)
------------
:. {[M -> ~(~M)] v [~M -> ~(M)]}

This argument is completely uncompelling, because it STILL leaves the truth value up in the air. In order to determine if the disjoin is true or false, it is necessary to posit one or the other of the members of the disjoin. A better way to understand it (although technically incorrect) may be:

[M <-> ~(~M)]
[~M <-> ~(M)] - until here, the truth value is completely indeterminate...
~(~M) - and here, we can solve the argument...
-----------------------------
:. M
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Unlimited power doesn't mean that you can break the confinement of logic. "
That's a contradiction in terms. Either there are or are not limits :D

As for the symbols, apparently you learned a snazzier system, but nevertheless, your example of clarifying by breaking the indeterminacy does not change the fact that M v ~M was introduced and so indeterminacy cannot be deduced solely from that introduction.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Unlimited power doesn't mean that you can break the confinement of logic. It doesn't make sense to say that God has the power to do X, if the power to do X doesn't exist.

We are in agreement that the Bible does indeed not make sense ;)

As far as the & vs. V debate...

If we consider the case where you are a man (M) or not a man (~M), then if we see (M v ~M) then yes, the truth value is indeterminate. However, if we see:

(M v ~M)
[M -> ~(~M)] - these two lines clarify that the two are mutually exclusive....
[~M -> ~(M)]
(M)
---------
:. [~(~M) & M]
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"but omnipotent DOESN'T mean you can make a four-sided triangle... you can be omnipotent within the bounds of logic,"

Omnipotence (Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power. http://en.wikipedia.org...

The bounds of logic are a set of limits, and therefore not compatible with omnipotence.

Or, since it's the bible's concept that's relevant here:

"Matthew 19:24-26 ... [26] Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Didn't notice where that said "Oh, nevermind, only all the logical things."

"but outside that, omnipotence doesn't even make sense."

Which supports your argument and mine. The bible's concept is outside that. Therefore the bible doesn't make sense :D.

"And yes, I did mean (A v ~A)."
You meant it in the following context?:

"I would argue that if you have a case where it is (A v -A) then the truth value is indeterminate.
"

Because in that context, you essentially say all cases in all reality are indeterminate, there are no truth values. If logical indeterminacy follows from premise "A or ~A," then my gender is indeterminate, since it clearly is the case that EITHER I am a man OR I am not a man. This post existing is indeterminate, since it clearly is the case that EITHER this post exists, OR this post does not exist. Etc.

You sure that's what you meant?
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I wasn't done with that comment...

In my argument, for it to really make sense, I have to assume that one of the two (or three) verses is correct . Ragnar is correct in saying that if they are both taken to be correct, we have an (A & -A) conjunction, which is always false. For the sake of a short argument, I'm presupposing that one of the pair is true, rendering the pair (A v -A).
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
JustCallMeTarzanmikesully99Tied
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 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
JustCallMeTarzanmikesully99Tied
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 
Vote Placed by asiansarentnerdy 8 years ago
asiansarentnerdy
JustCallMeTarzanmikesully99Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
JustCallMeTarzanmikesully99Tied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
JustCallMeTarzanmikesully99Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
JustCallMeTarzanmikesully99Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
JustCallMeTarzanmikesully99Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
JustCallMeTarzanmikesully99Tied
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