The Instigator
MightyBrain1000
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ReformedArsenal
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

The Bible makes no sense!!!

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/19/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,120 times Debate No: 18398
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (8)

 

MightyBrain1000

Pro

The some parts of the Christian Bible makes no sense at all! The part when Noah somehow travels around the world and gather all the animals that exist. Then he manages to fit them in a homemade ark? Come on, use some logic! Also the part that says Virgin Mary became pregnant before sexual intercourse, absolutely illogical! There are many more inconsistencies in the Bible, so much that I would run out of space listing them. By the way, I hate how people say "I have faith!" so don't give me that.
ReformedArsenal

Con

Simply put, my opponet asserts that Miraculous happenings are illogical. He would be absolutely correct and the Bible would be inconsistent and illogical (making no sense) if it did not presuppose a world where an omnipotent God exists who is able to do anything He wishes regardless of human limitations. Since the God of the Bible is able to create matter from nothing, it is easy to concieve that He could fit all animals into a given space, or cause a pregnancy to occur without intercourse.
Debate Round No. 1
MightyBrain1000

Pro

However, your holy book also sates that the Christian god is all powerful. However, if your god cannot destroy himself, he is not omnipotent. If he can do so, then he still isn't all powerful. Thus, the omnipotence of your god is false. Also, if your god was so powerful, why didn't he stop terrible events like World War 2 and the Black Plague? Why wouldn't he intervene with humanity when we were causing so much deaths and suffering? The most logical reason is that because your god doesn't exist!
ReformedArsenal

Con

My opponent seems to wish to argue something different to the resolution. I would love to mount a full response, however due to limited space I must be terse.

Plainly put, whether God does or does not exist is irrelevant to if the Bible makes sense or not. Let's have a syllogism.

Let's have a syllogism

Matthew 4:2 says that after 40 days of fasting, Jesus was hungry.

A) If any part of something makes sense, it cannot make no sense
B) Matthew 4:2 makes sense
Therefore) The Bible does not make no sense
Debate Round No. 2
MightyBrain1000

Pro

You are ignoring the fact that there are many contradictions in the bible. For example, "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham," (GEN 22:1) contradicts with "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (JAS 1:13) How can an omnipotent god make so many mistakes in his book? Finally, whether I win or lose this debate, I'd like to just state that I am 13 years old and this is my first debate.
ReformedArsenal

Con

My opponent again argues an irrelevant thing. Even if there were contradictions, this would not prove that the Bible made no sense. I have provided a passage that does in fact make sense, and therefore the Bible makes SOME sense, which means that logically it cannot make NO sense. I have proven the resolution false and therefore deserve your votes.

Thank you, Good Day.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mariahjane 5 years ago
mariahjane
There are so many contodictions in the bible and this was a failed attempt at it.
Posted by Oldfrith 5 years ago
Oldfrith
Pro-
Never, ever, EVER try and go for a sympathy vote. If you think you're going to lose, go out with the best argument you can think of, but NEVER say that this is your first debate. That makes you seem separate.

While I am criticizing you here, this is constructive. Hopefully, in your other debates, you don't go for a sympathy vote
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
@FightinFalcon

"I also don't buy that BOP should be entirely on Pro. Conduct to Con for the ridiculous 500 character limit."

That's what happens when you don't define your own BOP...
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
@Larz

"Pro didn't respond to con's objections, and con failed to appreciate the nuance in pro's points, and didn't respond to a few."

It's not that I didn't appreciate them, but when you only have 500 characters, you can't afford to respond to points that are not relevant.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
You seem to think that Omnipotent means that He should be able to do something that is logically impossible. Namely, Destroy something that is indestructible. If it is indestructible, then it cannot logically be destroyed, and so you expect him to do the logically impossible. Since you have built being able to do the logically impossible into omnipotence, he would be able to destroy himself and yet continue to exist.
Posted by MightyBrain1000 5 years ago
MightyBrain1000
sorry I meant to say relevant not reverent. My bad
Posted by MightyBrain1000 5 years ago
MightyBrain1000
sorry I meant to say relevant not reverent. My bad
Posted by MightyBrain1000 5 years ago
MightyBrain1000
sorry I meant to say relevant not reverent. My bad
Posted by MightyBrain1000 5 years ago
MightyBrain1000
sorry I meant to say relevant not reverent. My bad
Posted by MightyBrain1000 5 years ago
MightyBrain1000
By the way, proving that your god isn't all powerful is reverent because you specifically said he was.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
MightyBrain1000ReformedArsenalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: How could the Bible make no sense? It's a Bible!
Vote Placed by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
MightyBrain1000ReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: wow that was bad.
Vote Placed by t-man 5 years ago
t-man
MightyBrain1000ReformedArsenalTied
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 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: Pro didn't respond to Con's arguements.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
MightyBrain1000ReformedArsenalTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: SG to Con for the horrible font. No arguments were really convincing. I also don't buy that BOP should be entirely on Pro. Conduct to Con for the ridiculous 500 character limit.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
MightyBrain1000ReformedArsenalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: MightyBrain1000 unfortunately loses a point for conduct since he introduced new arguments in each round (even at the end of the debate), all of which were irrelevant [the debate was about the bible, not the apparent paradoxical qualities of god]. Pro needed to prove that a) contradictions make the bible full of nonsense b) miracles made a world with an omnipotent being already accepted as existing in the bible false and so on.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
MightyBrain1000ReformedArsenalTied
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: While I agree with PRO, CON did a great job at answering the objections from PRO.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
MightyBrain1000ReformedArsenalTied
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 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: Poor debate. Pro didn't respond to con's objections, and con failed to appreciate the nuance in pro's points, and didn't respond to a few. Pro had to prove that the bible makes no sense, because it was contradictory. It would have been good to define "sense" here. I felt con hadn't fully rebutted pro's case, but pro's case didn't establish that one cannot make sense of it. Good effort for pro's first debate, but con win. Con also gets conduct for not ranting.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 5 years ago
airmax1227
MightyBrain1000ReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: BOP on pro to prove 'Bible makes no sense' which he fails to do. Con refutes all of Pro's relevant assertions and supplies a generalized context and an example in which the bible makes sense. Resolution negated.