The Instigator
kwagga_la
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The God of the Bible Exist

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 374 times Debate No: 99560
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

kwagga_la

Pro

The Bible states in Genesis 1: God created" Therefore the claim is made that God exist.
Definitions for God (to be argued for or against) to be based on the Bible.

Should you wish to accept it will be up to Con to provide reasons why the God of the Bible do not exist. Since there is only 3 rounds, Con can start posting from the 1st round.

Please use only 2 arguments maximum per round. Should there be more than two then I will pick the ones I want to respond to without any obligation to answer the rest.

Con also agrees that forfeiting a round is the same as forfeiting the debate.
Sonofcharl

Con

Your proof of God relies solely on the bible.

How do you know that the bible is based on fact and not myth?

Especially as the bible of today would bear no resemblance to a text written thousands of years ago.

Today's bible is a corruption of a corruption of a corruption etc. etc. Just one huge "Chinese Whisper".

To prove God exists, you must first prove the authenticity of your bible.

An impossible task?
Debate Round No. 1
kwagga_la

Pro

Thanks for accepting the debate.

Your proof of God relies solely on the bible.

Rebuttal:

The debate is based on the Bible as the source for our arguments. The Bible is not the only proof for the God of the Bible. Ancient documents exist like the writings of the Church Fathers; Hebrew families relating their tradition that recounts how their ancestors have seen God on feasts days (witness testimony), inscriptions, archaeology and so on.

How do you know that the bible is based on fact and not myth?

Rebuttal:

To answer that question is not part o the debate. But I will give one reason for the authenticity of the NT. The writers claimed Jesus was God at risk of being killed by the Romans and Jews. They did not get money, fame or a 7 week vacation to Hawaii for their testimony. They were beaten, tortured and killed. It is very very very unlikely that someone, and in this case thousands of people, will die for a lie. Based on that testimony, I am convinced it is not a myth but a true witness account. Are you willing to die for the flying spaghetti monster?

Especially as the bible of today would bear no resemblance to a text written thousands of years ago.
Rebuttal:

It actually does. Let me give you one example. Polycarp was a disciple of John. He was around before 100AD. This is a quote from the KJV today and from one of his epistles where he refers to the same verse.

KJV 1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil:

Polycarp "But the love of money is the root of all evils." - The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians - The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus

Take note that the 2 verses are almost 2000 years apart and still the same.

Rebuttal:

Today's bible is a corruption of a corruption of a corruption etc. etc. Just one huge "Chinese Whisper".

There are 20000+ quotations from the early Church Fathers that still reads like the Bible we read today. It is only fair now that you prove your "Chinese whisper".

To prove God exists, you must first prove the authenticity of your bible.

Rebuttal:

What will be evidence for you as to the authenticity of the Bible?

An impossible task?

Rebuttal:

No
Sonofcharl

Con

I am not arrogant enough or presumptuous enough to assert that God does or does not exist.

But, there is no evidence of God. So I have to conclude, That God does not exist.

Your proof of God, does rely on the Bible as evidence. Succeeding documents are only derivatives of earlier texts. None of which are original.

You refer of Hebrews relating their traditions.

Wouldn't this have been happening all over the world? From Australasia to the America's. People passing on traditional information.

Why should the Hebrew's be the one righteous race of people?

You cite Polycarp of Smyrna. Indicating that already the original information has migrated hundreds of miles, over hundreds of years and been translated from the Semitic languages into Greek.

Let's not forget that the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek between 300 and 200 BC. Some 2000 years before the Modern Christian bible evolved..

Let's also not forget that the earliest copies of biblical texts formed part of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were not original.

There are no original biblical texts.

Let me quote you form a scientific study. (Peterson and Peterson 1959.)

Participants were tasked with memorising a 3 letter sequence. They were then distracted with another task. It took only 18 seconds for the original 3 letter sequence to be forgotten completely.

If human memory is so fallible. How can you suggest that a text of information composed thousands of years ago and subsequently translated, copied and rewritten, can in any way be a reliable version of the original information.

And let's not forget. There are no original biblical texts.

So I reiterate. How can you prove that Moses's tale was fact and not fanciful?

It is an impossible task.
Debate Round No. 2
kwagga_la

Pro

Rebuttal:

1. I am not arrogant enough or presumptuous enough to assert that God does or does not exist.

Reply:

Your statement may sound pious but you are guilty of being arrogant and presumptuous yourself to infer that people (including myself) are arrogant and presumptuous to believe God exist.

2. But, there is no evidence of God. So I have to conclude, That God does not exist.

Reply:

I have asked you to tell me what evidence you require to prove the Bible is authentic since you say the authenticity of the Bible is the basis for my proof for God. You did not give any such information and even if you give such information in the next round it will be futile because the debate will be over.

I am copying some things I wrote in another debate that is evidence for God and the supernatural:

As for the Supernatural: I have mentioned that God has knowledge of things we cannot comprehend with the natural mind because of various natural restrictions, especially time and space. So here I will give you an example of supernatural knowledge. Job 38:16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? Here a "non existent" being (according to you) tells Job that there are springs in the sea. Not only that there are springs but that they are deep. So here is the problem. In Job"s day the technology did not exist to go down into the depths of the sea to discover springs. No natural man in that era, without the technology to assist and protect them, could have gone that deep. Natural man did not have the mental or physical capability AT THAT TIME to know this information without the aid of technology. Someone who makes a statement like that either is lying or has access to SUPERNATURAL knowledge. How will we know if it is a lie? Simply by verifying what was said. To have this supernatural knowledge implies supernatural capabilities. God did not say there "might be" springs but makes a statement of fact. Only in the 1970"s did man develop the technology to go down to the deep for THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY. Guess what they found? They found springs at the bottom of the ocean. This portion was written in the Bible and can be found in manuscripts predating the 1970"s so it is not a human invention or forgery. Not only is that an example of the supernatural but also of the existence of the being who imparted that knowledge. The knowledge imparted was truthful because it was verified and therefore the Being"s existence is credible.

(I edited this section) The evidence for Jesus Christ and the miracles He did is of the historical type. We call it "historical" because it is well attested too from the ancient world. The best rebuttals against the historical Christ falls in the category of presenting probable excuses. The facts are the evidence exists as written documents handed down and no one"s opinion will change that. The documents are cross referenced by numerous sources and cannot be doubted. The fact that there were numerous people who doubted Christ and the fact that "new" Gospels were written proves that the Bible was subjected to what is called the "scientific method". The scientific method calls for observance and comparison followed by peer review. Some of the people who were involved on both sides of the above mentioned were learned men who were contemporaries of Christ and even the eyewitnesses who witnessed Christ. We have records in written form that testifies to their scrutiny and findings (and I am not referring to ONLY the books of the Bible). Furthermore, the supernatural is everywhere to be found in the Bible, you just need to look for it. Job was but one example.

And by the way, after the review, they said the Scriptures they had were trustworthy.

3. Your proof of God, does rely on the Bible as evidence. Succeeding documents are only derivatives of earlier texts. None of which are original.

Reply:

I never said it does not rely on the Bible. I said there is OTHER proof as well. Having the original in my hands is not a requirement to establish truth or authenticity. Your argument for an original to prove authenticity and truthfulness is speculative at best and outrageous at worst. Does evolution have the first original human remains of the first human being? Does evolution have the original dinosaur"s remains of the very first dinosaur? 100 generations ago your ancestor was around, if not then you would not be around now to debate here. Do you have the remains of that ancestor to prove to us your authenticity? Does the last question sound outrageous? It should because you do not need your original ancestor around to prove you are authentic in which ever way.

4. Wouldn't this have been happening all over the world? From Australasia to the America's. People passing on traditional information.

Reply:

They actually do pass on traditional information. That is the whole point!

5. Why should the Hebrew's be the one righteous race of people?

Reply:

The nation of Israel is truly unique in this respect. God chose a nation to have a living witness that He exist. Confirmed by PROPHECY and unfortunately I do not have enough characters left to elaborate.

6. You cite Polycarp of Smyrna. Indicating that already the original information has migrated hundreds of miles, over hundreds of years and been translated from the Semitic languages into Greek.

Reply:

Yes correct, and let"s not forget that the text Polycarp was quoting from was the same as the KJV I have today.

7. Let's not forget that the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek between 300 and 200 BC. Some 2000 years before the Modern Christian bible evolved.

Reply:

Let"s not forget that the oracles of God were given to the Jews to preserve. The Septuagint done in Egypt by translators from every tribe instead of only the Levites as God commanded is not the authoritative OT to be used. The Hebrew text is probably the best preserved book from ancient times. The Levites counted every word in every line and then wrote the totals next to the line. They would repeat the same for chapters etc. When they were done copying the text they would check if the numbers corresponded. If it did not then it meant there was a mistake and they would start over. These methods are well known. Your loose references to cast doubt is only speculative and in light of the above baseless speculation.

8. Let's also not forget that the earliest copies of biblical texts formed part of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Reply:

How do you know that? You yourself claim we do not have the originals. Make up your mind. Do we have reliable authentic early copies that reflects the original for your statement to be true or not?

9. There are no original biblical texts.

Reply:

Your statement is only half true. We do not have the original physical text that was produced first. A copy of that text faithfully preserved CONTAINS the original text. When you go to a bookstore and you buy a book then you do not buy the original master copy from which all the copies was made. Does this mean you do not have the original text? Can you trust the copy you buy in the bookstore? Remember you do not have the original PHYSICAL one. It should be clear that the lack of an original does not make the copy a fake.

10. Participants were tasked with memorising a 3 letter sequence. They were then distracted with another task. It took only 18 seconds for the original 3 letter sequence to be forgotten completely.

Reply:

Before TV and all the other modern day distractions people were actually much better at it. Some of the early Church Father could recite whole Bible books from memory. A preacher once told that his professor could recite NT books in GREEK from memory.

11. If human memory is so fallible. How can you suggest that a text of information composed thousands of years ago and subsequently translated, copied and rewritten, can in any way be a reliable version of the original information.

Reply:

I can ask you the same question: How can you suggest that a text of information composed thousands of years ago and subsequently translated, copied and rewritten, CANNOT in any way be a reliable version of the original information? But to answer your question: The Bible makes mention of numerous places and events that have been validated by archeological finds. I have mentioned how the Hebrew Bible was copied. There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts that agree 99% with each other. Some of the fragments date back to before 100AD. We have other sources that quote or refer to the Bible through the ages and these references match with what we read today. Numerous sermons from antiquity survive that were preached that proclaimed the same Gospel found in the Bible. In other words the oral traditions and references match the Gospel. It did not change as you suggest.

12. And let's not forget. There are no original biblical texts.

Reply:

And let"s not forget that the lack of an original do not make the copy a fake or untrustworthy.

13. It is an impossible task.

Reply:

Perhaps for you.
Sonofcharl

Con

Pro opens this debate with the bold and succinct statement: "The God of the Bible Exist".

There are two ways to validate this statement. Either, show me God, or prove the authenticity of the Bible.

The onus is not on Con to instruct Pro in how to achieve a proof of God.

As I'm certain Pro is unable to show me God. The onus is solely on them to prove the authenticity of the bible. To do this they must prove that the basis of biblical information is fact and not myth.

Now lets respond to some of the issues Pro raises in their third round treatise.

Job 38:16.
A hundred different people could interpret Job 38. In a hundred different ways. Pro chooses one interpretation, that suits their argument.

I will now proffer my own construct based on Job 38:16.

Job 38:16. Theorises on the reasons for the marked differences between seawater and the freshwater of the land. And concludes that the water of the sea must emanate from springs hidden in the depths of the oceans.

Subsequent discoveries of geothermal vents in the ocean floor, does not validate either theory.

Jesus Christ.

The biblical tale of Jesus Christ, post dates the supposed inception of biblical information by many thousands of years. I therefore, do not consider it relevant to this particular debate.

The supernatural.

If you claim God is supernatural and not real and natural. Then you completely discredit the whole theory of God the creator. As you are now proposing the magical theory of something from nothing.

Authenticity.

Pro cites evolutionism rather than creationism. Pro also makes reference to dinosaurs. If you accept the theory of evolution and the existence of dinosaurs, you once again discredit the theory of God the creator. As the process of evolution and the existence of dinosaurs, predate the notion of God by millions of years.

Do I need my earliest human ancestors as proof of my existence?

Of course not. I am proof of my existence.

Do you need a copy of the first Bible to prove that your copy is real? Of course not. You can see it and you can feel it.

But. If you proclaim the existence of a God, based solely on the information written in your Bible. You have to be able to prove that the origins of this information are factual and not mythical.

Israel.

In order to give credence to the uniqueness of Israel. You must first prove the existence of God.

Polycarp's Bible.

One does not doubt the similarity of ancient and modern texts. But this still does not validate the factuality of the original information, on which either text was based.

The Levites.

Maybe the Levites were extremely diligent when copying texts. But their system would only work when copying verbatim. This does not preclude the likelihood of texts being corrupted, in translation. Especially when there are very marked differences between languages and alphabets.

The ability to memorise text.

The savant ability of memorising and reciting information. Is well documented but uncommon.

Archaeology and Greek manuscripts.

There is no reason why places and events referred to in the bible, should not be based on actualities.
And once again I stress that, there is no reason to doubt similarities between ancient and modern texts.

In conclusion.

Con asks Pro. To prove that the Bible, on which they base their proclamation of the existence of god, is factual and not mythical. Pro has failed to do this and of course it is impossible to do this.

The God of the Bible exists? Maybe he does. I cannot prove he doesn't. But Pro most certainly cannot prove he does.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 1700.me 11 months ago
1700.me
Correction the King James Version (KJV) is the only true bible.
Posted by kwagga_la 11 months ago
kwagga_la
Oops typo's: *Bile should be Bible & The Coptic version you claim is the only true Bible ALSO STATE that God exist.
Posted by kwagga_la 11 months ago
kwagga_la
@ tahirimanov Funny, I see on your profile you are a Muslim. The Coptic was a translation from the earliest manuscripts. As far as I know there is no complete Coptic version that survived until today. You can start a debate regarding which Bile is the correct one if you like and I will accept but that is not relevant here. The Coptic version you claim is the only true Bible and that Bible also says God exist. So in short, you should accept then a God who is not called Allah exists since you claim you have the "only true Bible" and Muhammad is not named as a prophet in that Bible.
Posted by tahirimanov 11 months ago
tahirimanov
"Definitions for God (to be argued for or against) to be based on the Bible."
Which Bible? I think Coptic Bible is only true Bible. Disprove it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.