The Instigator
Proving_a_Negative
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
philochristos
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The Christian god sends aborted babies to hell.

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 2 votes the winner is...
philochristos
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/22/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 930 times Debate No: 76820
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (2)

 

Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Argument
Round 3: Rebuttal to opponent's Opening Argument
Round 4: Defense of your Opening Argument
Round 5: Closing Statement

The NIV Bible says that aborted babies do go to hell. My opponent will argue that it doesn't.

Rules:
1. Assume god exists.
2. Must use NIV Bible when quoting from the Bible.
3. BoP is on Pro.
4. Assume the Bible is 100% truth.

Note: This means that if the Bible claims that Joseph can walk on air, we may not argue that he couldn't walk on air. If the Bible says that Joseph said, "I can walk on air" we can argue that Joseph couldn't actually walk on air.

5. Assume the dichotomy of afterlife which are heaven and hell.
6. Assume the afterlives are mutually exclusive.
7. Assume that god sends the "soul" of the person to heaven or hell when they die.
8. No kritiks.
9. Rule breaking results in a loss.

This topic usually elicits a lot of responses in the comment section. Please be mature and reasonable. If you begin a comment and start making unsubstantiated claims and being overall disrespectful, expect a very condescending comment back from me. If you are mature, I will treat you with respect.
philochristos

Con

I accept. Maybe the odds be ever in your favour.
Debate Round No. 1
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.

Argument

John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Those who sin and haven't received forgiveness of their sins and don't go to heaven. If they don't go to heaven, they must go to hell. Unborn babies don't have the cognitive ability to believe in his son, even if the child somehow was hearing the gospel from the outside world. Psalm 51:5 says, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." The moment you are conceived, god sees you as sinful. Therefore, if you die before you believe in his one and only son, you go to hell. Thank you and good luck.
philochristos

Con

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.

The burden of proof

We have a peculiar situation in the way this debate is set up. On the one hand, Rule #3 states that the burden of proof is on Pro. On the other hand, round 2 is for opening statements, and I'm not suppose to offer a rebuttal of Pro's opening until round 3. That leaves me with nothing to do in this round. If I don't have the burden of proof, there's no opening statement for me to make.

I'm going to go ahead and make an argument negating the resolution anyway. If it happens that my argument fails, it shouldn't matter since I don't have the burden of proof. But if it happens that my argument succeeds, then that should count against Pro's position since it negates his position. Either way, I can't lose by making an argument in this round, so why not?

My central argument for the negation of the resolution

Here is my argument:

1. If aborted babies are without sin, then the Christian God does not send aborted babies to hell.
2. Aborted babies are without sin.
3. Therefore, the Christian God does not send aborted babies to hell.

Defense of the first premise

I suspect Pro will agree with my first premise, but just in case he doesn't, let me give a few reasons for why we should think it's true.

1.1 In Matthew 5:30, it says, "And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." The implication is that one can avoid hell by avoiding sin, so one should get rid of whatever it is that's causing them to sin.

1.2 The purpose of hell is to punish people for their sins. In 2 Peter 2:4, 9-10, it says, "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment. . .then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority." So just as God sends the angels to hell for their sins, so also does God send people to hell for their sins. Since the purpose of hell is to punish people for their sins, it follows that if somebody doesn't sin, they won't go to hell.

1.3 In Proverbs 17:15, it says, "Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent--the Lord detests them both." If God detests condemning the innocent, and if the unborn are innocent, then God will not condemn them.

Defense of the second premise

I'm pretty sure Pro will object to my second premise on the basis that David claimed to be sinful from his mother's womb (Psalm 51:5). To that, I have a few responses:

2.1 David's claim can be taken as hyperbole. He means to emphasize the depth of his depravity. In American culture, when somebody is really proficient at something, like playing the banjo for example, we sometimes say things like, "He was born with a banjo in his hands." But we don't mean that literally. We just mean they're really good at it. The same thing is true of David. When he says he is sinful from his mother's womb, he just means he's an awful sinner.

2.2 Psalm 51:5 says that David was sinful from the time his mother conceived him. It's impossible for that to be literally true because sin requires the faculty of volition, and volition requires mental states such as intention, desire, and the ability to act. A cluster of cells is completely incapable of having any cognition whatsoever, and it is also incapable of making any choices or taking any action. So it is impossible for David to have literally been sinful from the moment of his conception.

2.3 The whole of Ezekiel 18 argues against children sharing in the guilt of the sins of their parents. So not only do the unborn have no sin of their own, but neither do they bear the sins of their parents.

2.4 In Isaiah 7, there's a prophecy about the birth of Immanuel. In verses 15-16 it says that Immanuel "will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." This passage shows that people are not born with the ability to act morally (i.e. to choose between right and wrong). Rather, it's something they acquire some time after birth. It follows that the unborn lack this capacity and are therefore incapable of sin.

2.5 Nobody can be morally accountable for what they don't know. Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains" (John 9:41). He also said, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin" (John 15:22). James writes, "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them" (James 4:17). Notice the condition James places on sinning. Before one can sin, they must first know the good they ought to do. But the unborn know nothing at all. From the moment of conception, they don't even have brains. The brain developes some time later. So it's impossible for the unborn to know right from wrong, which means it's impossible for them to be guilty of sin.

Conclusion

That's it for my case against the resolution. In the next round, I will rebut Pro's case for the resolution. But please keep in mind that I didn't have to make this case, so if Pro manages to refute everything I said in this post, it should not count against me. However, if he wants to refute either of the premises, then he has to refute every argument I gave for that premise. I gave five arguments in favor of the second premise. If he were to refute four of them and fail to refute the fifth, the second premise will be unrefuted. So he must refute all of the arguments.

Debate Round No. 2
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Rebuttal

"I suspect Pro will agree with my first premise"

Yup.

"I'm pretty sure Pro will object to my second premise on the basis that David claimed to be sinful from his mother's womb (Psalm 51:5). To that, I have a few responses"

Yup.

"David's claim can be taken as hyperbole. He means to emphasize the depth of his depravity. In American culture, when somebody is really proficient at something, like playing the banjo for example, we sometimes say things like, "He was born with a banjo in his hands." But we don't mean that literally. We just mean they're really good at it. The same thing is true of David. When he says he is sinful from his mother's womb, he just means he's an awful sinner."

Indeed. Practically any claim made in the Bible can be taken as a hyperbole. There isn't sufficient evidence to think that Psalm 51:5 is actually a hyperbole, unless the rest of the Bible indicates that babies aren't born sinful, or perhaps an indication of such. This is completely up for debate still. Please give a reason why you think it is a hyperbole other than that hyperboles exist.

"Psalm 51:5 says that David was sinful from the time his mother conceived him. It's impossible for that to be literally true because sin requires the faculty of volition, and volition requires mental states such as intention, desire, and the ability to act. A cluster of cells is completely incapable of having any cognition whatsoever, and it is also incapable of making any choices or taking any action. So it is impossible for David to have literally been sinful from the moment of his conception."

I would like Biblical evidence for the "sin requires the faculty of volition" statement, which this entire argument relies on.

"The whole of Ezekiel 18 argues against children sharing in the guilt of the sins of their parents. So not only do the unborn have no sin of their own, but neither do they bear the sins of their parents."

Ezekiel 18 is way too long to quote, so I will give a link to it here: https://www.biblegateway.com... Please read the entire chapter and come back. This entire chapter argues that a son will not bear the consequences of their parents sin. The story given in this chapter is also a hypothetical situation in which they have a presumable "perfect" son. Everything from Ezekiel 18:1-20 is summed up in Ezekiel 18:20 which says, "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them." This does not mean babies are born unsinful. The conclusion you made is non sequitur. Please point out in Ezekiel 18 where it says the unborn have no sin of their own.

"In Isaiah 7, there's a prophecy about the birth of Immanuel. In verses 15-16 it says that Immanuel "will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right,for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." This passage shows that people are not born with the ability to act morally (i.e. to choose between right and wrong). Rather, it's something they acquire some time after birth. It follows that the unborn lack this capacity and are therefore incapable of sin."

Again, the conclusion here is a non sequitur. You jump from not know how to choose right from wrong to not being able to sin. This passage shows that babies are unable to make the right decisions, not that they aren't making wrong decisions. It does not follow that the unborn lack this capacity and
are therefore incapable of sin. They may not be conscious of their wrong doing, but that doesn't give them an excuse for sinning, at least not according to the Bible.

"Nobody can be morally accountable for what they don't know. Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains" (John 9:41). He also said, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin" (John 15:22). James writes, "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them" (James 4:17). Notice the condition James places on sinning. Before one can sin, they must first know the good they ought to do. But the unborn know nothing at all. From the moment of conception, they don't even have brains. The brain developes some time later. So it's impossible for the unborn to know right from wrong, which means it's impossible for them to be guilty of sin."

For this, I will have to go passage by passage.

John 9 talks about a miracle Jesus did. Jesus healed a blind man. Then some pharisees came to stir up trouble. Please read John 9:35-41 which contains the majority of the important information. Here is a link: https://www.biblegateway.com... The title of this section in the NIV Bible is "Spiritual Blindness" which indicates that Jesus isn't talking about our eyes, but instead our beliefs. This not only makes the passages make more sense, but it also justifies the title. That being said, here is some commentary I found explaining what Jesus meant, since it was rather cryptic: http://www.studylight.org... Those who do not see are the ones who are spiritually blind. Jesus came to reveal the true son of god to them, that they may see. Those who see are the ones who are not worshiping the real god [note that this is different from the ones who now see from the previous sentence]. Jesus will make those people blind, showing them that their god is false, since he is the real son of god.

Please read John 15:18-25 Link: https://www.biblegateway.com... By using the context of the passage, we that 'them' was Jesus was talking about the whole world. Since Jesus prophesied about everything he would do [starting in Genesis 3:14] and now Jesus is fulfilling said prophecies, nobody in the world has an excuse for sinning, even babies.

James 4:17 doesn't define sinning. It only gives an example of sinning. Exodus 20:1-17, Galatians 5:19-21, and Colossians 3:5-6
are a larger but still incomplete list of sins. The condition that James gives is only for that type of sin.

Rebuttal directly against Premise 2

Premise 2 says "Aborted babies are without sin." I will now present a large list of passages that support the concept of original sin, the idea that the moment somebody is conceived, they have sin. I hope that my opponent can go through each and every passage and give a justified interpretation for each one explaining how it is not evidence for original sin.

Note: In Round 1, I never stated that passages in the Bible can't contradict eachother. These passages I will present will completely contradict all 5 arguments you gave for defending premise 2, if any of them still hold true after I refuted them. The best way to handle a situation like this would be that the person with the most evidence wins this argument? By evidence, I mean Bible passages supporting the concept of course.

Some of these I will give a short explanation for. Others are really long and I will give a link to read it.

1) Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
2) Ephesians 2:2-3 https://www.biblegateway.com... We were by nature deserving of wrath.
3) Genesis 8:21 https://www.biblegateway.com...
4) Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god"
5) James 1:15 "Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." Notice that death is a result of sin, hence aborted babies are sinners.
6) Isaiah 64:6 "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf,and like the wind our sins sweep us away." We are all unclean, including babies.
7) Romans 3:20 "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." When we look at the god's law written in the Bible, nobody is righteous and we become conscious of our sin.

Thank you and good luck. I look forward to seeing my opponent's rebuttal to my opening argument.
philochristos

Con

This will be a rebuttal to Pro’s opening arguments. His argument can be summarized like so:

1. If you sin but do not believe, you go to hell when you die.
2. The unborn sin.
3. The unborn do not believe.
4. Therefore, the unborn go to hell when they die.

You can probably already tell from my opening that I agree with Pro’s third premise, but I disagree with his second premise. Rather than repeat all my reasons for disputing the second premise, I’ll just refer the reader to my opening where I gave five arguments against the second premise, including a refutation of his defense of his second premise. I’ll defend that case against Pro’s rebuttal in the next round.

In this round, I’m not going to show that the first premise is false. I just want to show that Pro’s defense of the first premise is invalid.

Pro’s defense of the first premise comes from John 3:16, which says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." The key part that I want to focus on is where it says, “whoever believes in him shall not perish.” My contention is that this statement does not support Pro’s first premise.

We can see this by examining the logically equivalent statements that can be derived from “whoever believes in him shall not perish.” Any categorical statement can be rephrased into an “if-then” statement. For example, the statement, “All men are mortal,” can be restated to say, “If one is a man, then one is mortal.” They both mean the same thing. So, let’s rephrase our statement:

5. Whoever believes in him shall not perish.

5 means the same thing as:

6. If one believes in him, then one shall not perish.

Taking the contrapositive, this statement is logically equivalent to this:

7. If one perishes, then one does not believe.

That’s all we can do. For those not familiar with “contrapositive,” let me explain that.[4] In a modus tollens syllogism, the consequent of the first premise is denied in the second premise.[1] It looks like this:

8. If P, then Q.
9. Not Q.
10. Therefore, Not P.

Let’s assume that 8 is true. With that being the case, it follows that IF 9 is true, THEN 10 will be true. Let’s put that in a statement:

11. IF not Q, THEN not P.

In other words, if 8 is true, then 11 is true, and vice versa. 8 and 11 are logically equivalent statements. One is the contrapositive of the other.

Now let’s get back to Pro’s argument. As we’ve seen, the key statement in John 3:16 can be stated as follows:

6. If one believes in him, then one shall not perish.

And. . .

7. If one perishes, then one does not believe.

However, Pro attempts to infer from John 3:16 that:

12. If one does not believe, then one shall perish.

But notice that 12 is not logically equivalent with 6 or 7. 12 does not follow from John 3:16. If Pro argues from what John 3:16 actually says, then his argument commits a logical fallacy. If he uses 6 as his first premise, then his argument commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.[2] In a syllogism, it would look like this:

6. If one believes in him, then one shall not perish.
13. The unborn do not believe in him.
14. Therefore, the unborn shall perish.

If, instead, Pro uses 7 as his first premise, then his argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.[3] In that case, his argument would look like this:

7. If one perishes, then one does not believe in him.
15. The unborn do not believe in him.
16. Therefore, the unborn shall perish.

Pro quite clearly argues that since the unborn do not believe in Jesus, they shall perish, i.e. go to hell, when they die. Since he bases that argument on John 3:16, we can see that his argument commits a formal logical fallacy. It is invalid. Pro makes an invalid inference from John 3:16 that is not logically equivalent to what John 3:16 says. So John 3:16 does not support Pro’s first premise.

Conclusion

There are three premises in Pro’s argument. I have agreed with his third premise. I have shown his second premise to be false. I have shown that his argument for his first premise is invalid.


NOTES

1. http://www.philosophy-index.com...

2. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...

3. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...

4. http://www.regentsprep.org...



Debate Round No. 3
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

I'm sorry about the sudden font and size change of this round. I had a lot of trouble moving this from a word document.

Defense of my Opening Argument


I will agree with the way my opponent has summarized my argument, that being:

P1. If you sin but do not believe, you go to hell when you die.
P2. The unborn sin.
P3. The unborn do not believe.
C1. Therefore, the unborn go to hell when they die.

"You can probably already tell from my opening that I agree with Pro’s third premise"

My third premise has gone unchallenged.

My opponent also argues that I did not validly support my first premise with John 3:16. He does not believe that the way I interpreted it is good enough to justify P1. I will give a few more passages that support the way I interpret John 3:16 as being correct. Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 2:6-8 says, "God 'will repay each person according to what they have done.' To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." Mark 9:43 says, "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out." 1 John 5:12 says, "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life." John 3:36 says, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them." With all of these passages, it is clear that god sends sinners who have not accepted Jesus as their savior will go to hell. This affirms my interpretation of John 3:16 and defends P1.

P2 is defended by simply looking at the concept of original sin. I have shown that original sin is Biblical whilst my opponent attempted to show that it wasn't. Please refer to these passages:

1) Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
2) Ephesians 2:2-3 https://www.biblegateway.com...... We were by nature deserving of wrath.
3) Genesis 8:21 https://www.biblegateway.com......
4) Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god"
5) James 1:15 "Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." Notice that death is a result of sin, hence aborted babies are sinners.
6) Isaiah 64:6 "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf,and like the wind our sins sweep us away." We are all unclean, including babies.
7) Romans 3:20 "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." When we look at the god's law written in the Bible, nobody is righteous and we become conscious of our sin.

With original sin being Biblical, aborted babies are sinful thus P2 is also defended.

All three premises hold true. The conclusion I derived from the premises remains true. Thank you and good luck.
philochristos

Con

This will be a defense of my opening in light of Pro’s rebuttal. In my opening, I made this argument:

1. If aborted babies are without sin, then the Christian God does not send aborted babies to hell.
2. Aborted babies are without sin.
3. Therefore, the Christian God does not send aborted babies to hell.

In his rebuttal, Pro conceded my first premise but disputed my second premise. I gave five arguments for the second premise that included a rebuttal to Pro’s argument against it in his opening. Let’s see how he responded.

2.1 David was sinful from conception

I argued that David’s statement was a hyperbole. Pro conceded the possibility but challenged me to give a direct reason. In fact, I did give a reason for why we should take it as hyperbole. We should take it as hyperbole because it conforms to a well-understood hyperbolic pattern—saying that somebody was born with a banjo in their hands. I also argued in subsequent points that a literal interpretation is impossible.

2.2 No volition

Here, I argued that since the unborn (especially in the earliest stages of development) do not have the faculty of volition that they cannot sin. Rather than denying my argument, Pro just requests me to support my claim that sin requires the faculty of volition with scripture. The support for my claim comes from the very meaning of the words, “sin” and “volition.” Sin is when one does what they shouldn’t do (1 John 3:4) or doesn’t do what they should (James 4:17). Doing and not doing are acts of volition. One cannot obey or disobey the law without the faculty of volition.

2.3 No inherited guilt.

I argued this point from Ezekiel 18. Pro seems to agree with me. He even quoted the conclusion of the chapter, which says “The child will not share the guilt of the parent.” Pro’s response is that the passage does not say the unborn have no sin at all. But that response commits the strawman fallacy. The point I meant to make from Ezekiel 18 is that children do not inherit their parents sin. This point was meant to stand beside my other arguments which showed that the unborn do not commit sins. If children neither commit sins of their own (as I showed in other points), nor inherit the sins of their parents (as I showed in this point), then the unborn are sinless. So this was not a stand alone argument for the sinlessness of the unborn; rather, it was part of a cumulative case against the sinfulness of the unborn.

2.4 Age of accountability

I argued from Isaiah 7 that prior to some point after birth, people cannot choose between right and wrong and therefore cannot be guilty of sin. Pro seems to think that although the passage does support the notion that the unborn cannot “reject the wrong and choose the right,” they nevertheless can choose the wrong. But that is clearly a misunderstanding of the spirit of the passage. Granted, the passage does not explicitly say that the unborn cannot choose the wrong, but surely it is implied that they can choose neither right nor wrong because they are not moral agents.

2.5 No knowledge

Here, I argued from various scripture that one cannot be guilty of sin unless they know right from wrong, and the unborn know nothing at all.

The first scripture was John 9:41. Pro’s explanation of the passage seems to be consistent with mine, so I don’t know how he thinks it amounts to a rebuttal. He’s right when he says it’s about our beliefs. If we are blind in the sense that we lack knowledge, then we cannot be guilty of sin. The unborn have no beliefs, therefore no knowledge, therefore no sin.

The second scripture was John 15:22 where Jesus said, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin.” Pro argues that because Jesus is referring to the “world,” and the world includes the unborn, then Jesus must be implying that the unborn have no excuse for their sin either. But the context indicates that “world” does not refer to every living person. Rather, it refers to those to whom he spoke and those who witnessed his miracles. In verse 24, he says, “As it is, they have seen [the miracles], and yet they have hated both me and my Father.” In the New Testament, “world” hardly ever refers to every single person. It is plainly evident that no unborn person has ever seen Jesus’ miracles nor heard him speak, nor heard anything about him. They have no knowledge of Jesus because they are incapable of having knowledge. If a person who has no knowledge can have no sin, then the unborn have no sin.

The third scripture was James 4:17, which says that anyone who “knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it” sins. Pro replies that it’s not the definition of a sin but only an example of it. I grant that. But sin is either doing wrong or not doing right. James 4:17 shows that before one can fail in doing right or wrong, they must first know what they ought or ought not to do. So even though James 4:17 only gives one side of the coin, it still shows that knowledge is necessary for sin.

Pro’s arguments against my second premise

Pro says, “I never stated that passages in the Bible can't contradict each other.” However, Rule 4 says, “Assume the Bible is 100% truth.” A contradiction is a certain indication of error, so Pro must assume no contradictions in the Bible or he violates Rule 4.

Pro gave seven scriptures to disprove my second premise, to wit:

1) Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

I have already responded to this.

2) Ephesians 2:2-3 We were by nature deserving of wrath.

The “we” in this passage refers to those who, prior to conversion, were “gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts.” Obviously, that doesn’t refer to the unborn since they have no desires or thoughts.

3) Genesis 8:21

Genesis 8:21 contradicts Pro’s view. It says that “every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood,” not from conception.

4) Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god"

Pro takes “all” to mean “every single person” but “all” is used frequently in the New Testament to a limited group. For example, in Romans 5:18, it says, “Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.” If “all” means “every single person,” then this would lead to universal salvation. But Pro and I both reject universal salvation. So “all” does not mean “every single person.”

5) James 1:15 "Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." Notice that death is a result of sin, hence aborted babies are sinners.

This argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It goes like this:

5.1 If you sin, then you die.
5.2 The unborn die.
5.3 Therefore, the unborn sin

Pro’s argument from James 1:15 is logically invalid.

6) Isaiah 64:6 "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf,and like the wind our sins sweep us away." We are all unclean, including babies.

Pro again mistakenly takes “all” to mean “every single person, whether born or not.” The “us” in Isaiah 64:6 refers to morally aware Israelites. The unborn are not moral agents, so they are not included.

7) Romans 3:20 "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." When we look at the god's law written in the Bible, nobody is righteous and we become conscious of our sin.

Obviously, before the brain forms, the unborn cannot be conscious of sin. They can’t be conscious of anything at all. The unborn can neither obey nor disobey the law because they lack knowledge of the law and they lack the faculty of volition.

Conclusion

Since none of the seven scriptures Pro brought up refuted my second premise, my second premise remains unrefuted. And since Pro’s attempts to refute my arguments for the second premise all fell short, my arguments still establish that the second premise is true.

Debate Round No. 4
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Conclusion

Although I still think that I'm correct about this topic, I don't think I did a great job at defending my position. I could have done much better, but I didn't really try hard. I underestimated my opponent. He did a great job. Please vote for philochristos. #conceding

Also, if you would like to, I would be willing to debate you on whether or not original sin exists, which was at the heart of this debate.
philochristos

Con

Thanks to my opponent for a gracious concession. I enjoyed the debate. I'll respond to the challenge in the comment section.

Thanks to everybody who read the debate, and a special thanks to everybody who votes.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HazelStone 1 year ago
HazelStone
God would never send aborted babies to hell. You can deny that fact all you want but you cannot change it.
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
Okay, lemme rephrase. I think it's possible that the Christian God sends aborted babies to hell. I doubt he does, though.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
Are you by chance interested in debating about the plausibility of alchemy? I have done the debate twice already so you can see my arguments ahead of time for the existence of alchemy.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
By resolution, I mean the one for this debate (aborted babies go to hell), not the original sin debate.
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
As I said, "So it is possible that the unborn go to hell. I doubt they do, though"
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
So do you actually agree with the resolution then? :D
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
I don't see how we can agree that there are contradictions in the Bible while at the same time agreeing that the Bible is 100% true. We'd be contradicting ourselves. If I do the original sin debate with you, I'll have to play devil's advocate again. I'm not up for it right now, but I'll let you know if I am in the future.
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
I actually believe in original sin. I think you could've made a better case for it. I had to play devil's advocate in this debate a little, but in case you're interested in my real view it is this: I think Adam's sin is imputed to all people, including the unborn. So it is possible that the unborn go to hell. I doubt they do, though. Christ's righteousness is imputed to all of the elect, and it's possible for the unborn to be among the elect. So they may all be saved. That's a matter of speculation, though. While I believe that in general, morally aware people must believe in Christ before they can be saved, I also believe God can save whoever he wants, and I doubt he expects the unborn to believe in him before he'll save them. I can't prove that from scripture, though. It's only a speculation. The scriptures really don't address the condition of the unborn. All of the scriptures that talk about sin, faith, salvation, etc., all apply to people who are have the cognitive capacity to sin, repent, believe, etc. I think that's just the common sense way to understand the Bible.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
If we do the original sin debate, we must agree again that the Bible is 100% truth, but it contains contradictions. When there is a clear contradiction, the side with the most independent passages is more correct. It's the only possible way.
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
1. If we assert that there is a contradiction in the Bible, then we must deny that the Bible is 100% true.
2. If we deny that the Bible is 100% true, then we violate Rule 4.
3. Therefore, if we assert that there is a contradiction in the Bible, then we violate Rule 4.

A hyperbole does not violate Rule 4 because a hyperbole is not a statement of a falsehood; rather, it's a figure of speech. It's not meant to be taken literally.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Proving_a_Negativephilochristos
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
Proving_a_Negativephilochristos
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes in round 5.