The Biblical God Created Earthly Life
Debate Rounds (4)
*No acceptance round; just start debating.
*No round rules.
The biblical god created earthly life.
Has the Burden of Proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to AFFIRM that the biblical god created earthly life.
Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to NEGATE that the biblical god created earthly life.
*Definitions can be changed, before accepting, in the comments section, as long as both Pro and Con agree to the changes.
*Definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate.
biblical - of the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.
god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
created - brought something into existence.
earthly - relating to the planet on which we live; the world.
life - the condition that distinguishes animals, plants, fungi, protista, archaea, and bacteria, from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth and reproduction.
Thank you for your attention...
I reject the resolution that the biblical god created earthly life, because earthly life's origin was naturally caused, and the bible's creation account is inaccurate, contradictory, and shouldn't be considered authoritative on matters of the origins of earthly life.
However, this seems irrelevant to Pro.
"The book of Genesis clearly states that God (the biblical one) created the heaven, earth plants animals and man over a period of days. Whether this account is real in an empirical sense is irrelevant."
In fact, it's the only relevant thing in regards to this debate.
Earth and earthly life are both empirical concepts, rooted in reality, irrespective of references to them in works of fiction.
Claiming that these empirical concepts were created by an imaginary character from a childishly written story becomes an empirical truth claim.
Empirical claims require empirical evidence, not an internally confirming fictional work.
"The position of the argument (that a non-material being did or didn't do something) presupposes the validity of non-material beings."
If the non-material being doesn't exist, then by definition that being didn't do something.
In this debate, god is the creator of the universe.
Well, the universe wasn't created, in any fashion, because creation is a temporal process, and, when there was no universe, there was neither stative time nor the passage thereof to allow for a temporal process to occur.
Therefore, there can't be a creator of a universe that wasn't created; god doesn't exist, so god could not have created earthly life, which, unlike god, exists outside of the bible.
Pro had mentioned:
"The non-material [entity's] existence can only be substantiated/verified via the bible (the source of Christian belief) and the belief in the truth of the bible."
Can the same thing be said of earth or earthly life's existence?
Can we only substantiate the existence of earthly life via the bible?
If not, then explaining earthly life's origin requires more than a belief in the bible.
Also, why should we consider the bible to be authoritative on matters of truth claims?
Pro keeps at it:
"You can only refute the substantiating source (existence of the bible) or within the source (find a biblical conflict), or the belief in the truth of that source (one believer validates it)."
Ok, so what Pro is trying to say is (correct me if I'm wrong here)...since the bible mentions that god created earthly life, therefore, within the bible, "god created earthly life" is true.
The problem is that earthly life doesn't exist only within the bible, and god does.
Also, the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic matter exists completely outside of the bible.
In Dragon Ball Z, Goku blows up the earth.
Of course, this is not the planet on which we live.
This is just a reference to the earth we actually live on, within a fictional Dragon Ball Z story, and this referenced earth was blown up by Goku; this referenced earth is not the empirical, real earth.
This is how I view Pro's reasoning that the bible says god created earthly life, therefore "god created earthly life" is true.
The earthly life that god created in the bible is not the actual condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic matter, rather it is a reference to life in a fictional work, the bible.
Pro has to demonstrate the the god of the bible created the empirically verifiable condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic matter; that the bible tells us so does not affirm the resolution.
Pro has neither shown a creator of the universe's existence nor this creator's involvement in the creation of earthly life.
I await Pro's actual case...
My apologies, I haven't overlooked your argument/case, but rather maneuvered around it, because your presuppositions put forth in the phrase 'did the biblical god create earthly life?' make any discussion of the origin of the actual earth (a commonly debated topic) irrelevant to this argument. Here's why (I think anyway)
To begin a question with 'did the biblical god', one must presuppose the existence of a biblical god and his ability to act (the 'did' part). So you concede the existence of this biblical god by merely putting him forth as an agent in your initial question e.g, "Did mom move my skateboard?" Random, I know, but demonstrates that the question presupposes that mom exists and that she an agent/acts or does.
The common attack would be to refute this presupposition, which would turn the debate into 'does god exist, prove it....(An even more common topic),and would result in us arguing the same side, but as I am to argue Pro, I have only to validate the claim/presupposition by running with what is already accepted, but no further, so
The only way a biblical god, which we both accept exist (for the sake of our argument), can be substantiated, as an non-entity, is via an actual source ( the material book/bible) and material believers(Christians) who believe in the truth of this source. This is the only validation we can rationally/reasonably seek for an immaterial/non-physical entity. Of course what hasn't been explicitly stated is the component, belief, but luckily, the presupposition covers this as well..
So now all that remains is to validate the act of creating life on earth. If this biblical god does exist, we know that the only proof of his actions/deeds/works lies in the source (the book) Christians cite it as the authority for anything we need to know about the biblical god. So in we go, and find, that the bible (source no.1) states clearly that God, created all things (earth and life, included) in Genesis. So if we accept the presupposition that a biblical god exists, that the Bible is the only source/authority for substantiation (of his existence and his works) and that the followers believe this book to be the truth, we must accept that he did create earthly life...
I know your aspirations for this Argument may have been quite different... But alas this if where my logic led. Thanks for your attention...
You agreed to the definitions by accepting this debate, and the definition of life is "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic matter."
Since the bible is a work of fiction, and life is nonfictional, the bible's assertion that one of its fictional characters created the nonfictional concept of life is a truth claim that requires external (outside of the bible) verification.
Pro has ignored this argument.
Pro presses on:
"Your presuppositions put forth in the phrase 'did the biblical god create earthly life?' make any discussion of the origin of the actual earth (a commonly debated topic) irrelevant to this argument."
1. I never asked the question "Did the biblical god create earthly life?" instead, Pro did...Pro has supported the assertion that the biblical god created earthly life, simply because it says so in the bible; I've rejected the existence of this god.
2. Yeah, the origin of the earth is irrelevant to whether or not god created earthly life...though I would also reject the claim that god played some part in the earth's formation.
Pro continues mistaking:
"To begin a question with 'did the biblical god', one must presuppose the existence of a biblical god and his ability to act (the 'did' part)."
I have never asked this question...check the debate. Pro has dishonestly claimed that I have asked this question.
Also, merely asking a question about an agent DOES NOT presuppose the existence of the agent.
Did the tooth fairy create earthly life?
No, because the tooth fairy isn't real and life is.
Either way, I've never asked the question that Pro claims that I have.
Pro marinates in their dishonesty:
"So you concede the existence of this biblical god by merely putting him forth as an agent in your initial question."
I NEVER asked that question, Pro...you did!
Pro provides an example:
"'Did mom move my skateboard?' Random, I know, but demonstrates that the question presupposes that mom exists and that she an agent/acts or does.
If mom doesn't exist, the the answer to this question is no, mom did not move my skateboard; you don't need to presuppose to inquire about a truth claim.
So, just by using a concept in a question DOES NOT presuppose its existence.
Did the one-sided polygon create earthly life?
No, one sided polygons don't exist, so they couldn't have done anything.
Pro dodges my arguments:
"The only way a biblical god, which we both accept exist (for the sake of our argument)..."
The definitions in this debate define god as the creator of the universe.
Well, much like a one-sided polygon is impossible, so is the creator of a universe that wasn't created.
Without the universe, there is no time, and without time, there is no temporal process like creation.
You keep dodging this point Pro.
I do not accept the existence of the biblical god, because the bible is a work of fiction, and the universe is not a work of fiction.
Even if the bible mentioned a one-sided polygon, it wouldn't amount to that one-sided polygon's existence.
Pro, please pay attention.
The universe is a real thing, the earth is a real thing, and life is a real thing given the agreed to definitions in this debate.
The bible is a fictional source that happens to reference these real things in a fictional way.
We have no reason to believe that the fictional claim "god created earthly life" has any impact on these very real concepts.
Pro starts to get relevant:
"So now all that remains is to validate the act of creating life on earth."
"The bible (source no.1) states clearly that God, created all things (earth and life, included) in Genesis."
Ok, well the universe wasn't created, therefore, god in this debate doesn't exist, and the claim of Genesis is errant.
So Pro, how did something that doesn't exist/never has existed create all things?
Also, as I've stated, the earth and life are real concepts, so this a truth claim from a fictional work.
Truth claims require a mechanistic explanation, and Pro has not provided us with that.
Pro, the planet on which we live, the agreed definition of earth in this debate, isn't the "earth" referenced in the bible.
The bible's reference to earth is FICTIONAL, and the definition of earth in this debate is real.
Pro, the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic matter, the agreed definition of life in this debate, isn't the "life" referenced in the bible.
The bible's reference to life is FICTIONAL, and the definition of life in this debate is real.
My aspirations are irrelevant Pro.
Our mutual agreement on the terms of the resolution require Pro to affirm that god had a role in the creation of the defined term "life," the very real condition that separates organisms form inorganic matter.
Pro is not attempting to meet their burden.
I reject this resolution, because the bible does not actually talk about life within this debate...the bible merely uses the word life as a fictional reference to the very real concept.
1. let me first start by saying that somehow I may have been channeling Jeopardy, as I turned the statement 'The Biblical God created earthly life' into the interrogative, "Did the Biblical God create earthly life?" But it is immaterial as the presuppositions remains the same!!!! My apologies, for the confusion!!!!
2.I don't know what makes you think that I am in disagreement with the definitions, I accept them fully because they are the bases for my argument.
biblical - of the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.
god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
We both agreed to the definitons...so you cannot be selective in which terms to validate.
You must deal with the entire claim and the presupposition inherent within and the expolations on those presupposition for each and every term within that claim:
The biblical god created earthly life
Biblical (you defined, i accepted) the Christian scripture.
God (you defined, i accepted) creator of the universe
Bear in mind that this is the subject of the claim and like any sentence is subject to the the logic of intelligibility (if you begin a claim with the subject "the woodland nymphs" don't be so sure that people will take at gave value, and if they do, anticipate the conditions under which that do accept it...because they are not empirical entities...
So, Though we accepted the biblical God's existence, we must acknowledge his non-physical/empirical presence poses a challenge to defining him in a material sense...
We do this with many things that are not empirically verifiable
E g., emotions... We can't see them or even feel them via our objective sense (tact) but they are very real and result in very real consequences e.g, tears, adrenaline, tremors of the extremities, etc.
Most importantly human beings agree that they exist...so shared experiences can validate non-physical phenomena as well.
So with this biblical god, we must acknowledge that he is subject to the rational constraints namely, physically creating the earth and life when we have no empirical evidence of even his presence (this would require a leap of faith/delusion)
Therefore tje subject of the cladding can only persist via the validation of believers, and the book that they authorize as the one indisputable source on god...which is the bible, his actions cannot rationally extend any further into the rational world, without these two validating sources.
So now we move onto the predicate... Created earthy life...
And here you forget the subject of the sentence and delve into actual creation but unfortunately, per your definition, the subject (a necessary part of the claim) is bound to an existential conditional...which is that he can exist and do anything as long as the bible and the believers validate it.
So in we go to search the 'bibble' and poll a few believers... And of course the logic is complete...
You set these terms, i accepted, and they fell where they should (but where you didn't expect).
You cannot propose a false claim, then later confess its falsity to suit your argument, you can not present, then damage or undermine a primary source on which your claim relies, it Invalidates the claim and voids the debate...
But this sadly is what you have done... By saying that you now believe the Bible to be untrue or a work of fiction
So you actually forfeit the intitial claim and argument, in my opinion. It was never left to me to defend a presupposition to which we both agreed at the start of the debate (to make the argument possible lol...because I didn't make the claim...i only had to accept it, under rational terms...and now you're saying its false/fiction???? What ever shall we talk about now??? Lol
The framing/wording of your claim is more important than any premise or conclusion... And you should at least try to anticipate where it will go...
I really found this quite painful...the redundancy....
Thanks to all who vote and review....
Pro, you are killing me!
I reject this resolution, because Pro has made no attempt, no wait, actually, Pro has made a negative attempt to show how the god of the bible created earthly life as defined in this debate.
Pro has instead advanced the idea that because the word "god" is merely mentioned in the resolution, therefore god exists, and since the phrase "created life" was mentioned in the resolution and in the bible, therefore the biblical god created earthly life.
Pro, statements can be said about agents without the agent existing AND without presupposition of the agent's existence.
You have dropped this argument.
If I took the Pro position of a debate with the resolution, "The Tooth Fairy Created Teeth," my opponent does not concede the existence of the tooth fairy by taking the Con position...actually the entire Con position could be that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, and THAT ALONE would negate the resolution that the tooth fairy created teeth.
You would have to agree that while the tooth fairy is not real, teeth are, so if you found some fairy tale that claims that teeth were created by the tooth fairy, this would be an actual truth claim that would be negated by the tooth fairy's nonexistence. Furthermore, as Pro, I would have to SHOW with some explanation that 1) the tooth fairy exists and 2) it played a demonstrable role in the creation of teeth OUTSIDE of the fictional fairy tale; teeth exist outside of the fairy tale, but the tooth fairy does not.
Pro's case is no different.
Pro is claiming that the tooth fairy exists by its mention in the resolution AND that because Pro's fairy tale says "The tooth fairy created teeth" therefore within the fairy tale, the tooth fairy DID create teeth.
The problem is that the teeth in the fairy tale are not actual teeth per the definitions of the debate.
Hopefully that helps a little.
On to Pro's incoherence...
Pro is confused:
"I don't know what makes you think that I am in disagreement with the definitions..."
Well, the definition of life is not the one mentioned in the bible, yet you claim that since the bible mentions the term, it therefore affirms its creation by god. You're ignoring the definition of life in this debate, because you know you can't demonstrate god's involvement with real life.
"We both agreed to the definitons...so you cannot be selective in which terms to validate"
Pardon the tu quoque, but you are only validating the biblical part of it.
If the biblical god did not create the actual universe, then it's not god in this debate, validated by the agreed definitions.
I've pointed out that the universe wasn't created, which negates a creator, which negates god, which negates god's involvement in the creation of earthly life, which effectively negates the resolution.
"You must deal with the entire claim and the presupposition inherent within and the expolations on those presupposition for each and every term within that claim."
Deal with the entire claim?
The entire claim contains the actual planet on which we live, and the actual life of which we are a part, and all Pro has "dealt with" is fairy tale planet and fairy tale life.
Demonstrate your god's role in the creation of life...
Pro just says some words strung together:
"Bear in mind that this is the subject of the claim and like any sentence is subject to the the logic of intelligibility (if you begin a claim with the subject "the woodland nymphs" don't be so sure that people will take at gave value, and if they do, anticipate the conditions under which that do accept it...because they are not empirical entities..."
This is called "proof by verbosity."
When someone is intentionally trying to confound rather than persuade, it's called proof by verbosity; it's fallacious.
Pro is trying to say that woodland nymphs are not real, but can be understood in a sentence.
Understanding a subject in a sentence is not a proof of that subject's existence.
The major league baseball team on Mars created martian life.
You may understand that subject, but what MLB team is on Mars?
Framing and wording do not a demonstration of earthly life's creation make.
In closing, I can only call the voter's attention to the fact that all arguments rest on logical structures; that no matter how lofty or abstract a concept/construct, it must be put forward and held in good faith for the (at least for duration of the debate). Con however has undertaken to score a cheap victory by making an affirmative claim about a 'spiritual' being, positioning himself in opposition, and then pulling the rug out from under the claim by attacking its truthfulness... We all know that truth, validity, and soundness are those bases on which arguments are judged. Bearing this in mind, any person who puts forth a claim whose veracity they do not intend to uphold or defend (for the time being) damages his credibility and, in the case that it is his initial claim, voids the argument entirely. Con has gone from stating outright that assertions do not presuppose the truth of the specific content being asserted. That we don't read/apprehend sentences from left to right, or that there is no contexual understanding inherent in syntax...all in an effort to discredit what he put forward! My goal has been to draw attention to his assumption that because he chose to argue against his claim, he thought he wouldn't be held to it...lol. But he's bound to same rules of engagement in both instances. For a claimant to affirm a belief in the the actions of a supernatural entity then say that entity doesnt exist is a 'turn'. If he couldve argued without contradicting the original claim, it wouldve been a spectacular debate!!!
It really becomes painfully to demonstrate the logic/good faith behind parts of speech and communication as a whole, which is why we would like to have debates that didn't attempt to distort our tacit understanding of that very communication. So I apologize for those who felt a little bogged down from the pedantry...
I will say that its been entertaining to watch him trying to wriggle out of it.
Thanks to all who review and vote...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 7 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I don't buy Pro's arguments. I mean, I understand where Pro is coming from, e.g. the resolution assumes a biblical God. And I fully agree with Pro's position insofar as the resolution assumes a Biblical God. But that isn't enough to vote Pro, because what Con is doing is challenging that assumption. He's essentially running an argument called a "kritik." Kritiks usually criticize the resolution, and fail to uphold a proper burden of proof. But in this case, it does. The existence of kritiks in debate itself gives this debate to Con ~ Con can challenge any assumptions he wants. I agree with Pro that the resolution presumes "God," but disagree that Con's arguments should be discredited. Pro assumes the existence of God, and must justify that assumption. Sans that assumption, the notion that "the Biblical God created earthly life" is false ~ if he didn't exist, he didn't create earthly life. As such, I vote Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.