The Instigator
jhenley9111
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Skyangel
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The Bible is not evidence for God

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 4 votes the winner is...
jhenley9111
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,130 times Debate No: 45146
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

jhenley9111

Pro

The bible is not good evidence for god. In order for the Bible to be evidence, you have to prove that it's stories are accurate and correct.

I challenge you to prove your point. Good Luck!
Skyangel

Con

The debate topic claims the bible is not evidence of God. I take the position that the bible is indeed evidence of the character named God.
The bible is very good evidence that stories of God exist.
In order for the bible to be evidence of its own stories, no person needs to prove the stories are accurate and correct.
All myths are self evident.

For Pro to claim that in order for the bible to be evidence, its stories need to be proven to be accurate and correct is much
like saying "In order for the stories about Santa to be evidence of the Santa character in the stories, you have to prove the stories are accurate and correct. "
That is illogical reasoning when you are talking about a mythical story in the first place.

Mythical stories contain mythical characters and the evidence of those characters is obviously in the stories themselves. That principle applies to all imaginary characters including the one named God.

Stories do not need to be proven to be accurate and historically correct for a myth or concept to exist. The story is evidence of the existence of the mythical character regardless of whether the story is historically accurate or not.

Mythical characters might not exist in reality but the characters do exist in the fantasy realm. To deny that is quite foolish.
Why does anyone need to prove the accuracy of a myth? Since when do mythical stories and allegories need to be accurate and correct to prove that the characters in them exist in the stories?
Debate Round No. 1
jhenley9111

Pro

First off I would like to clarify one thing. By "Accurate and correct" I mean historically true.

"The bible is very good evidence that stories of God exist.
In order for the bible to be evidence of its own stories, no person needs to prove the stories are accurate and correct."

Why is the Bible good evidence. I'm very disappointed that you did not explain why it is.

"In order for the stories about Santa to be evidence of the Santa character in the stories, you have to prove the stories are accurate and correct. "

In order to believe in Santa, you have to have prove he exists. You can believe in things without proof, but that is a different topic.

" Mythical stories contain mythical characters and the evidence of those characters is obviously in the stories themselves. That principle applies to all imaginary characters including the one named God."

So your saying if I told you a story about a dragon that lived in a cave in my yard, that story would provide enough logical evidence to prove that dragon's existence? What kind of logic is that? And did you just call your god imaginary? By the way your god's name is Yahweh, not God. But call him whatever you'd like.

"Stories do not need to be proven to be accurate and historically correct for a myth or concept to exist. The story is evidence of the existence of the mythical character regardless of whether the story is historically accurate or not."

Not to exist, no. But to be taken seriously, yes. You must believe that Christoper Columbus rode a magical dolphin to find the New World.

"Mythical characters might not exist in reality but the characters do exist in the fantasy realm. To deny that is quite foolish.
Why does anyone need to prove the accuracy of a myth? Since when do mythical stories and allegories need to be accurate and correct to prove that the characters in them exist in the stories?"

Yes, imaginary figures that have not been proven to exist only exists in your mind. You need to prove the accuracy of a myth so that we can separate fact from fiction and so we can experience the universe in a more logical state of mind. That's why Greek Mythology is not followed anymore.

So based on your reasoning, it is safe to say that you believe in every god and every mythological creature ever told.

You still have not prove to me that your holy book is true.

Resources:

^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof (Sep 24, 1996) ISBN 0802838200 pages47-51
^ Jump up to: a b c d Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 1998 ISBN 0-86554-373-9 page 336
^ Jump up to: a b The Ten Commandments: Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church by Patrick D. Miller (Aug 6, 2009) ISBN 0664230555 page 111
^ Jump up to: a b Theology of the New Testament by Georg Strecker (2000) ISBN 0664223362 page 282
Skyangel

Con

"Why is the Bible good evidence. I'm very disappointed that you did not explain why it is."

The bible is good evidence because it is filled with stories about God. The debate heading only says " The Bible is not evidence for God" I am saying it is definitely evidence of the character named God because anyone can easily see a character by that name is in the stories. I am not claiming the character is real.
You did not specify the character in the debate title had to be perceived as real.
You did not specify which God you were talking about or whether you were talking about a mythical God or a real God. We can only presume you were talking about the God in the bible. I perceive that character to be a myth and the evidence of the mythical character is in the stories themselves just like evidence of any mythical character is in the stories about the character.
The bible is a story book and the evidence of its own stories is found within it. It is the best evidence of it's own stories that you will find. God happens to be a character in the book and the book itself is evidence of that. No one can deny it.
If the bible is not evidence of the characters it contains what in your opinion would be better evidence of stories about a mythical God ?

"In order to believe in Santa, you have to have prove he exists. You can believe in things without proof, but that is a different topic."

I used the example of santa to explain that God exists as a myth in stories in the same way Santa exists as a myth in stories . It is an existing concept regardless of whether the character is real or not.
You do not need to prove that a mythical character exists in reality for people to believe in the concept. Gullible people simply believe what they are told. For example, the whole world believes in Santa in a way because people dress up like Santa and keep the myth of Santa going through the generations. They might not believe the character is real but they still believe in the concept. If they did not, they would not pretend to be Santa.

"So your saying if I told you a story about a dragon that lived in a cave in my yard, that story would provide enough logical evidence to prove that dragon's existence? What kind of logic is that?"

No I am not saying a story about a mythical dragon proves the dragon is real. I am saying the story proves the story is real. A book proves the book is real. Written words prove the written words are real. The existence of a story proves a story exists. The story does not need to be true in order to exist. Myths obviously exist. That does not make the characters in the myths real and does not mean they come alive in reality. All it means is that they exist in fantasy land. If you tell me a good story it is proof that you have a great imagination and can tell a good story. The characters in the story exist in your imagination. If they don't exist there where did you find them?

" And did you just call your god imaginary? By the way your god's name is Yahweh, not God. But call him whatever you'd like.""
You presume I am talking about "my" God. What makes you think the bible character is my God?
The character in the bible does not need to be my God in order for me to acknowledge the character exists in the fictional stories. I do not worship that character in the bible stories but I do not deny the character exists in the stories either. Fictional characters obviously do exist in fiction.

"Not to exist, no. But to be taken seriously, yes. You must believe that Christoper Columbus rode a magical dolphin to find the New World."

What Columbus used to find the "new world" is irrelevant to the discoveries he made. If an observer described his ship or vehicle as "a magic dolphin" because that's what it looked like to them and it was the best way they could describe it, does that mean Columbus discovered nothing at all because the described vehicle is not perceived to exist in reality?

Is the concept of Santa taken seriously by this world in spite of Santa not existing in reality? It certainly is when you look the millions of dollars made by the businesses who push the idea of Santa at Xmas time in order to profit from it.

"Yes, imaginary figures that have not been proven to exist only exists in your mind."

Thank you for conceding that imaginary characters do exist even if just in people minds. Do you also concede that the bible is evidence of what existed in the writers minds at the time of writing?

Why do you insist that anyone needs to prove the accuracy of a myth when you know that no myth is an accurate historical fact in the first place? Your own logic appears to be confused. It is illogical to ask anyone to prove a mythical character exists as a real person, especially when you have agreed the character is mythical and only exists in the imagination of people. It appears that you are confusing fact and fiction. You are trying to get someone to prove a mythical character is real.
If you dress up as Santa and tell people you are Santa does that make Santa real? It does in the perception of those who believe you are Santa. It doesn't in the perception of those who understand you are only play acting.

Separating fact from fiction is not hard when you understand invisible friends do not exist in reality.
Greek mythology and all other kinds of mythology is still followed by those who like to believe gods exist. Jesus became a God to the Jews and Greeks who decided the character Jesus was God. Many Greeks today are Christians who follow the mythical God of the bible and believe he exists. All they have done is swap past myths for more modern myths. It is called upgrading. Some call it progress. Some call it recycling.

Based on my reasoning, I believe every god and every mythological creature in allegorical stories are fictional.
You are totally misinterpreting my logic. I hope this reply has enlightened you a bit more ton the way I think.

"You still have not prove to me that your holy book is true."

Why do I need to prove the bible is historically accurate?
I do not perceive the bible to be a holy book and I do not perceive it to be a historically accurate document. I perceive it to be a collection of allegories and parables which contain mythical characters. Nothing in the title or OP causes me to presume your opposition was required to believe it is an accurate historical document which proves the existence of a historically accurate character. To expect anyone to prove the historical existence of a mythical character is an unreasonable expectation. The bible is obviously not a historical document. People who wish to record historically accurate documents do not place talking serpents and talking donkeys and dragons with seven heads into those historically accurate documents. Any one who understands anything about literature can easily see it is not historically accurate but is rather an allegorical and poetic work of art.

A myth does not need to be a historically accurate document to convey a truth or be evidence of the mythical characters within it. For example you can convey the truth that children should be wary of strangers by telling a story using talking animals. The fact that animals cannot talk in reality does not take away from the truth of the message.

The bible is a compilation of allegorical stories and poetry. Proof of any of its mythical characters are within the book itself. The debate heading is basically saying that a mythical story book is not evidence of what is written in its own pages. I say it is the best evidence there is of the stories contained in it and the characters in the stories. If the stories themselves are not good enough evidence of the myths within them, what other evidence do you need?

Any mythical book is evidence of itself and also of the mythical characters within it. It is illogical to ask anyone to prove that a myth is a historically accurate document or that the characters in the myth are real.

The concept of God obviously exists in this world and is very real even if the character is mythical. The religions which worship God are enough proof of that fact. Much money is made by the concept and spent on building fancy buildings so believers can worship their idols in luxury.

The bible, a compilation of mythical stories, is evidence that the myth named God exists. The fact that many people worship a myth named God is evidenced in the traditions of religions. Whatever they worship exists in their own minds even if they do not perceive it as a myth. The myth of God continues to exist in the same way the myth of Santa continues to exist.
Debate Round No. 2
jhenley9111

Pro

" I am saying it is definitely evidence of the character named God because anyone can easily see a character by that name is in the stories. I am not claiming the character is real."

The character in the Bible is not named God. I already explained that. Please stick to the debate. I don't care if you can prove that the book is real.

"You did not specify which God you were talking about or whether you were talking about a mythical God or a real God."

I absolutely did. In the debate title and in round one. There is only one god in the bible. And there is no difference between a mythical god and a "real" god. None have been proven. All are mythology by definition.

"If the bible is not evidence of the characters it contains what in your opinion would be better evidence of stories about a mythical God ?"

Real evidence. Like I pointed out in round one, about the dragon story. I would have to prove that the dragon is real. Not just by going on and on about stories that are not true.

"I used the example of santa to explain that God exists as a myth in stories in the same way Santa exists as a myth in stories . It is an existing concept regardless of whether the character is real or not.
You do not need to prove that a mythical character exists in reality for people to believe in the concept. Gullible people simply believe what they are told. For example, the whole world believes in Santa in a way because people dress up like Santa and keep the myth of Santa going through the generations. They might not believe the character is real but they still believe in the concept. If they did not, they would not pretend to be Santa."

"No I am not saying a story about a mythical dragon proves the dragon is real. I am saying the story proves the story is real. A book proves the book is real. Written words prove the written words are real. The existence of a story proves a story exists. The story does not need to be true in order to exist. Myths obviously exist. That does not make the characters in the myths real and does not mean they come alive in reality. All it means is that they exist in fantasy land. If you tell me a good story it is proof that you have a great imagination and can tell a good story. The characters in the story exist in your imagination. If they don't exist there where did you find them?"

I agree to a large extent. But that's not the topic of the debate. There are people in the world who believe that the Bible is true in the real world. I was looking for one of those people to debate me. If you are not one of those people, I really don't know why you picked this debate (I don't want to know).

"You presume I am talking about "my" God. What makes you think the bible character is my God?"

Because you decided to debate me in a debate which is clearly not for you. Of course I thought that you believed the god of the bible!

"What Columbus used to find the "new world" is irrelevant to the discoveries he made. If an observer described his ship or vehicle as "a magic dolphin" because that's what it looked like to them and it was the best way they could describe it, does that mean Columbus discovered nothing at all because the described vehicle is not perceived to exist in reality?"

I said that he literally rode on a dolphin, as in a metaphor, not a simily. This comes down to historical accuracy. We know that he did ride on a dolphin. So whoever says so is wrong. Plain and simple.

" Do you also concede that the bible is evidence of what existed in the writers minds at the time of writing?"

Not exactly. They really believed it. But that is NOT the point of the debate.

"Why do you insist that anyone needs to prove the accuracy of a myth when you know that no myth is an accurate historical fact in the first place?"

Because other people think that it is.

" You are trying to get someone to prove a mythical character is real."

I would love them to. That was the point of the debate. I know fact from fiction by the way.

"Why do I need to prove the bible is historically accurate?"

Because you agreed to be challenged in this debate, Sir.

You clearly did not understand the concept of this debate. It seems to me that we agree on just about everything. So why did you want to debate me?
Skyangel

Con

I understand that God has many names in the bible but nevertheless they are all referring to the same character also known as God. The names are irrelevant in the overall picture. As Shakespeare once said, "A rose by any other name...."

We have determined that the book is real. Some like to accept the fact that it is an allegorical book since it has proven allegories contained it. All logically thinking humans also understand any literature containing talking animals were never written as historically accurate documents.

I say again in spite of your denial that you did not specify which God you were talking about or whether you were talking about a mythical God or a real God.

Everyone knows there is only one main God in the bible but the bible also mentions other gods which according to the main God don't exist but he still mentions them anyway. However that does mean everyone believes that main God to be real. There is indeed a vast difference between a mythical god and a "real" god. It all depends on how you define the word God.
For example, the very first mention of God in the bible is in Genesis 1:1. The Hebrew word is 'elohiym . When we look up the meaning of that word it is not referring to anything invisible or intangible. It is a plural word which does not refer to any single entity. It refers to a group of many. One of the meanings of Elohiym is simply "rulers and judges". We can have very real rulers and judges in this world who are normal humans. On the other hand we can also have imaginary people as rulers and judges in any fictional story. Just because people are real does not mean they cannot also be imaginary and mythical. The same applies vice versa but usually the mythical ones do things which no ordinary person can do in reality and that is why they end up being super heroes in the fictional stories.

If you perceive the Elohiym in Genesis as referring to rulers and judges , that could easily be referring to real people. It all depends how you look at it and interpret the allegories.

I could call one of my teachers "a dragon" and prove she existed. She would be real but the term dragon is an idiom and does not mean she was a physical dragon even though she may have been perceived as one by many students.
Some call police pigs but does that turn them into real pigs? When you see a pig running around the farm is the pig the police? The word God is an idiom in that sense. It can refer to any rulers and judges you wish to attach it to in reality or in a myth. The owners of this site for example are the God of this site. What they say is law and if it is disobeyed, the disobedient and rebellious get thrown out of their "kingdom" as it were or face whatever punishment applies to the "crime".

I am glad you agree with me .
You claim that is not the topic of the debate but you left the title open to be interpreted that way.
I know there are people in the world who believe that the Bible is true in the real world. To those people it is because of the way they perceive it. They cannot show you how they perceive it any more than they can show you their invisible friend to prove he exists.

Pro wrote " I really don't know why you picked this debate (I don't want to know)."
then his final remark he wrote "You clearly did not understand the concept of this debate. It seems to me that we agree on just about everything. So why did you want to debate me?"

Apparently Pro is confused about a lot of things and can't make up his mind whether he wants to know or does not want to know an answer.

I picked this debate to prove that there is more than one way to perceive God and the title "God" can be used to relate to any real rulers and judges as well as being perceived as a mythical character.

I do believe the God of the bible exists in the bible just as I also believe the three talking pigs exist in their own fairy tale. Whether God is real or mythical is a matter of definition and perception. One of the bibles own definitions of God is that God is Love.
Is Love real or imaginary? Can you prove Love exists in tangible reality?
If you believe in love then according to the bible definition of God as love you also believe in the bible God whether you are aware of it or not.

You agree with me that the mythical character referred to as God is fictional. Do you understand that the bible defines God as something immaterial and invisible like the wind ? Can you prove the wind exists?
It has no color shape or form. It cannot be observed under a microscope. It cannot be put in a box. You cannot find its beginning or end. However you can know it exists because you can feel it and observe the consequences of it passing by.
The same with love. Do those immaterial things exist or are they all a figment of our own imaginations?

Any mythical character can appear to be real if a real person decides to become that character in reality by adopting all their morals and principles. If you see a person dressed up as Santa does that not make Santa tangible and visible?

I did not agree to prove the bible is a historically accurate document. I took the challenge of proving that the bible is evidence of God. I explained why it was not necessary to prove the bible is a historical document to prove it is evidence of the characters within its own pages.
It is irrelevant whether the bible is historically accurate or not. It still remains evidence of the characters within its own pages regardless of whether they are real or not. Therefore I have confirmed that the bible is indeed evidence for God in the same way the story of the three pigs can be seen as evidence for three fictional pigs.

If you wish to debate whether the bible is a historically accurate document you need to start a new debate and make sure you explain to the opposition that they will need to prove the historical existence of talking animals and dragons with seven heads if they take on the challenge.
Debate Round No. 3
jhenley9111

Pro

"I say again in spite of your denial that you did not specify which God you were talking about or whether you were talking about a mythical God or a real God."

Here in America we a lot of times we use God (capital "G") as a synonym for the god of the bible. I sorry if you thought my grammar was unsatisfactory.

" Apparently Pro is confused about a lot of things and can't make up his mind whether he wants to know or does not want to know an answer"

I did not want you to answer at that part in the debate but rather, the end of my statement.

"I picked this debate to prove that there is more than one way to perceive God and the title "God" can be used to relate to any real rulers and judges as well as being perceived as a mythical character."

I don't know anyone who is arguing agents that.

"If you wish to debate whether the bible is a historically accurate document you need to start a new debate and make sure you explain to the opposition that they will need to prove the historical existence of talking animals and dragons with seven heads if they take on the challenge."

I think the title is fine. We just have different options. Instead debating me, you should have left a comment expressing your views.
Skyangel

Con

"Here in America we a lot of times we use God (capital "G") as a synonym for the god of the bible. I sorry if you thought my grammar was unsatisfactory."

There are a few spelling and grammar errors in your work but it's not the grammar which is the problem.
It is the presumption that everyone who reads the bible perceives the God in it to be an "invisible friend" in the sky and perceives the bible as a historical accurate document . The fact is that the bible is perceived in many different ways and so is the word God.

"I think the title is fine. We just have different options. Instead debating me, you should have left a comment expressing your views."

I chose to debate the way I did to point out that any fictional story can be used as evidence of the characters within it.
It is not necessary for any book to be historically accurate for it to be evidence of what is written within its own pages.
Therefore it's historical accuracy is irrelevant to the title of the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
jhenley9111

Pro

"I chose to debate the way I did to point out that any fictional story can be used as evidence of the characters within it.
It is not necessary for any book to be historically accurate for it to be evidence of what is written within its own pages.
Therefore it's historical accuracy is irrelevant to the title of the debate."

Other people see things the opposite way. I wanted to debate one of them.
Skyangel

Con

Then try again but I doubt you will get any takers because none of them can prove the bible is a historically accurate document. It is filled with too much symbolism, allegories, idioms, poetry etc to be historically accurate.

In conclusion I repeat my statement that it is not necessary for any book to be historically accurate for it to be evidence of what is written within its own pages.

The bible therefore can definitely be perceived as evidence of God.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abraralam 3 years ago
abraralam
Natural, Neutral and Irrefutable Proofs on Truth of Islam
The Earth: (1)
The Earth is a nature. It cannot tell a lie. It cannot favor or support wrong thinking or wrong beliefs or wrong lifestyles. It is 100% true and neutral. This obeys only true God or true followers of God. It doesn't obey any other fabricated Gods or any followers of fabricated Gods or any Atheists.
The irrefutable proof on above commentary is that there are hundreds of fresh dead bodies with fresh blood of Muslim Martyrs and saints who are preserved from decay in their graves since centuries and years without used any chemicals. Once we had dug their graves for any reasons, we found them in above condition, our doctors examined them and there are thousands of eyewitnesses too. We will not dig their graves again for every person on his desire now because you non-Muslims are 5 billion at this time in the world.
So, if you are sincere for truth, but you do not trust us, then contact us with your doctors, researchers and media team about the research of these fresh dead bodies. If you refuted above research, we will pay you 1 million dollars and we will be ready for any punishment from you in front of world media otherwise accept our research and enter in Islam. Do not see condition of some bad Muslims because the Islam is perfect, but all Muslims are not perfect.
According to my research there is no fresh dead body with fresh blood of any Atheists and Non-Muslims that is preserved from decay under the Earth or on the Earth since centuries and years without used any chemicals. So it is 100% proof that there are no other Gods except Almighty Allah and the nature Earth doesn't support or obey any fabricated Gods (except Almighty Allah) or followers of fabricated Gods or Atheists.
Posted by abraralam 3 years ago
abraralam
The Air: (2)
The Air is a nature. It cannot tell a lie. It cannot favor or support wrong thinking or wrong beliefs or wrong lifestyles. It is 100% true and neutral. It obeys only true God or true followers of God. It doesn't obey any other fabricated Gods or any followers of fabricated Gods or any Atheists.
The 100% proof on it is that if you leave intact dead bodies of all soldiers on the Earth who fought against each other in the name of their Gods and religion, then after death only Muslim Martyrs will remain in fresh condition with fresh blood and their enemies will decay.
There are two questions to all Atheists and Non-Muslims:
1) The Muslim soldiers who are slain in the way of Islam, why their dead bodies remain in fresh condition with fresh blood? And, all Atheists and all Non-Muslims soldiers who are murdered in the way of their religions, why their dead bodies do not remain in fresh condition with fresh blood?
2) Why the God did not preserve your soldiers' dead bodies who sacrificed for Him and why the God of Islam Almighty Allah preserved the dead bodies with fresh blood of those Muslim soldiers who sacrificed for Him?
Posted by abraralam 3 years ago
abraralam
The Fire: (3)
It is perfect that the Fire is a nature. It does not have any capacity to save any human body in it. So, if a Muslim goes in it without using any chemicals and he is immune to burn, then it will be a miracle and a 100% proof on truth of Islam. And, look how intransigents are majority of Atheists and Non-Muslims that they do not agree to demonstrate such miracle and if we Muslims are ready to demonstrate such miracle (by the mercy of Allah) then they are not even willing to convert to Islam.
Dear Atheists and non-Muslims, I ask you that if a Muslim goes in Fire without using any chemical on his body in front of world media and he is immune to burn in it, then will you all convert to Islam or not?
If yes, then fix a time, date and place and start announcement in whole world because you are 5 billion and it is impossible that we enter in Fire for every Atheists and Non-Muslims for proving the truth of Islam.
Posted by abraralam 3 years ago
abraralam
The Water: (4)
The water is a nature. Our claim is that it only obeys the God of Islam or only true followers of God of Islam. So please study following research and event that is proof on our claim
Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them) were escaping from Egypt. When they reached to the Red Sea, they prayed to Almighty Allah. Allah the exalted said to Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) to hit the Red Sea with his staff. When the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) hit the Red Sea, then sea split in two parts and they found the open path to cross the sea. So, the Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them) crossed the sea.
The Pharaoh Ramesses and his army who were chasing the Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them) reached to Red Sea. They found the open path, so they walked on dry ground following them, but when they reached in the middle of Red Sea, the sea joined back on them and they drown in it.
After this event, Almighty Allah saved the dead body of Pharaoh forever as a sign for Atheists and Non-Muslims.
So according to head of archaeologist and anatomical scientists the Professor Maurice Bucaille (who converted to Islam after his research) and according to Holy Quran, Pharaoh Ramesses died in the Red Sea following the Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them).
For details on research of Professor Maurice Bucaille on this event please study "The Dead body of Pharaoh" in the article section on www.rightfulreligion.com.
Commentary on this event:
(1) This event is 100% true. So this event proves that there is existence of a God Almighty Allah (who is God of Islam and the God of Prophet Moses) because the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) hit the red sea via his staff by the order of Almighty Allah and the red sea obeyed the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) and his God Almighty Allah.
(2) This event also proves that water obeys the God Almighty Allah and His true followers because when the Prophet Moses (peac
Posted by abraralam 3 years ago
abraralam
The Bible's Greatest Miracle - how it works.
--------------------------------------------------
1. If you are a Christian, read the Bible over and over. Read every word, every sentence, every verse. Read all the books in the Bible.

2. Soon, you will either turn into

a) Atheist, b) Muslim or c) ""

That's the Bible's greatest miracle

Most ex-Christians, especially those who knew the Bible by hearts either became Atheists, Muslims or ". (unsound mind)

WHY?

For example, ask these questions, then answer them yourselves

Who is God? Jesus. Where did Jesus come from? From his Father? Who is his Father? God. How many Gods? One - repeat the process and you will start to feel the wonder of madness sipping through your body

Next.........

Who is Mary? She is Jesus' mother. Who is Jesus? he is God who creates everything? Who creates Mary? stop..no more stupid question !!!!

Next........

Is Jesus God? Yes? Does God pray? No. Did Jesus pray? Yes. Whom did Jesus pray to? Jesus prayed to God the Father. How many Gods? One. Who is God? Jesus.

repeat and the warm of madness will slowly creep to your mind..ad soul...

Next.......

Jesus was not made into God. He was already God. Was Jesus already God when he was in the womb? - no answer
Posted by TheSquirrel 3 years ago
TheSquirrel
Con is really stretching with this "god exists in the bible" argument. I think it truly flies in the face of the point of the debate.
Posted by Cheetah 3 years ago
Cheetah
I would accept this debate, however, since I will have to prove that the Bible is "Accurate and correct", I did not accept this. There is more proof that God and Donald Duck (despite the proofs that he is a fictional character) existed than Julius Caesar, probably the only reasons god is not fact is because of the creative and unscientific stories of the bible.
Posted by Nels4Tats 3 years ago
Nels4Tats
@narutouzamaki He isn't trying to force the probable idea that there is no "god. The debate is on how the bible is not evidence for a divine being. Either way, this is a debate and pro is merely looking for someone to debate him on the topic. He is not trying to "force" something onto you. He is expanding his array of knowledge by debating the different opinions that exist in the world. And I am sure that PRO is a respectful human being. This is no game.
Posted by NarutoUzamaki 3 years ago
NarutoUzamaki
You ant force someone to believe in evolution so stop the games
Posted by NarutoUzamaki 3 years ago
NarutoUzamaki
Ugh I am tired of people arguing over god is not real. People have religions you cant force them into believing it
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
jhenley9111SkyangelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: :D ridiculous :D PRO destroyed COn in second round when CON said: " Mythical stories contain mythical characters and the evidence of those characters is obviously in the stories themselves. That principle applies to all imaginary characters including the one named God." and PRO replied: " So your saying if I told you a story about a dragon that lived in a cave in my yard, that story would provide enough logical evidence to prove that dragon's existence? What kind of logic is that? And did you just call your god imaginary?" this is enough for RFD
Vote Placed by PiercedPanda 3 years ago
PiercedPanda
jhenley9111SkyangelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Very close debate, however I believe con had better arguments. Pro could not effectively counter them, so points go to con.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
jhenley9111SkyangelTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate did go in circles. I think most of the debate was nitpicking what the other had said instead of giving compelling arguments. It also seemed as though con would stick to his guns by saying "The bible does not need to be an accurate account of history for it to be considered evidence fro God.. well unfortunately for con that does not satisfy me at all.. it was a copout. Next time, try and debate!
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
jhenley9111SkyangelTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con technically had a point. But I refuse to give arguments--this wasn't a troll or "gotcha"-type debate, where such weaseling is to be expected. It was VERY clear what Pro intended to argue, which was NOT the route Con took at all. Con took a semantical equivocation through 5 rounds for no other reason than to ruin the debate Pro wanted to have, and was fairly clear he intended to have. I award conduct to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.