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

The Bible is true because it can be explained by science. We just aren't that advanced at the moment

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 43306
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I do believe that the texts within the covers of The Holy Bible (KJV) are true. The people and the places did once exist and I do believe that the events in The Holy Bible did really happen.

I also believe that it's of man's ignorance and pride, we have pushed God aside. We appear to advancing so well with technology that we feel as though we no longer need a 'Creator' or a 'God' to tell us what to do and how to live. This is understandable. Being made in God's image and all, I do not think that humans are stupid. I do think that if people were to put their minds together, they can achieve... but I think the knowledge is then limited...

So I will be arguing that the Bible is true by using the 'supernatural' happenings and the things that Bible said that have only been recently discovered. I might touch on a bit of history; our civilization- it's past and future but I will not be arguing about morals, good/evil, sin or anything of that sort.

My first point:

If this story is found as being true, would that not qualify the others as being more likely to be, if not completely?

Consider the story of 'The walls of Jericho' in Joshua 6. (Ai)

I have found a video if you are unable to read the story. It's not the best but it will do. If you don't want to watch the whole video, please just watch from 4:00. (Aii)

(Aii) http://www(dot)

So let's establish first whether it's true or not.


Circular reasoning. It's true because I believe it, and I believe it because it's true. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy and has no place in serious debate. If the Bible can be explained by current science, prove it or admit that you can't.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay, I am going to assume that you have watched the video.

It's fair to assume that the people + technology back then would have 'primitive' when compared to the technology we have today. Their walking about the walls of Jericho was seen as a miracle but any scientist would know that the phenomenon was resonance.
Accompanied by the stamping of feet, the sound waves created by the instruments and vocal chords caused the very atoms in the wall to vibrate, gaining more energy. This increase in oscillations would cause the material of the wall to become unstable and eventually fall down like the story goes.

What happened is much like what is taking place in the video a wine glass breaking with sound.

A more famous example would be Tacoma Narrows bridge that collapsed in 1940, Nov 7.

What made them walk about the great walls? It seemed so irrational. The logical thing would have been to at least try and damage the walls or shoot for the enemy. What gave them that insight? If resonance was only found out a few decades ago, there's no way people thousands of years old could have known about it. This story in particular would have seemed ludicrous before the discovery of resonance.

Using science, I can conclude that the story did take because it has something in it that has been explained and observed. The story must be true because I'm sure it would be pretty difficult to fabricate a story and then put in a phenomenon that you weren't even aware existed.
So if that is true, how many more things are there in the Bible that simple omit simple because we cannot explain yet?


You have not proven that the Bible can be proven by science. You need to prove your claims that the Bible can be proven by science. You have not produced one single reliable scientific study to back up your claims. You need to do so.
Debate Round No. 2


Could you kindly explain the reason for your thinking this?


Because I believe in logic. If you make a claim, you need to prove it, or admit that you don't know or that is your opinion. Are you saying that you cannot prove your claims with a scientific study?
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
Con did a poor job articulating the issues with Pro's case, but it was job enough. Let's look at the topic provided. In order to prove that science will eventually prove the Bible true, you have to go through a lot of steps, not only explaining how just one example might, maybe, be true. Pro is essentially stating that this holds true because resonance might theoretically have been used to bring down the Walls of Jericho. Two problems here.

One, the fact that resonance exists doesn't prove even that specific portion true. It doesn't mean that they understood resonance. It simply means that the writers of that particular story knew that sound was powerful, not exactly a new concept. The fall of the Walls of Jericho isn't a proven historical event, nor was this method documented beyond the Bible.

Second, if we accept this, then we must, by default, dismiss much of the Bible. If science reveals simple, non miracle ways to reach those ends, then God is an unnecessary portion to it. Natural laws explaining everything is the ultimate contradiction to the argument for God.

But even if I accepted your points, proving a single portion to be scientifically accurate doesn't show that science will eventually reveal the entire Bible to be true. You have to provide more than that, and as it's chiefly your burden of proof, doing so unsatisfactorily results in your loss.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.