The Instigator
banjos42
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SNP1
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

The Old Testament, or Torah, was given to the Jews by God.

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 5 votes the winner is...
SNP1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 572 times Debate No: 68770
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

banjos42

Pro

I will try to provide evidence to show how the Old Testament must have been from God, Con will argue that it was not written by God and/or was not given to the Jewish people many years ago.

(I'm not saying it was actually written by God, but dictated to Moses for him to write)

Please accept the debate in round one.
SNP1

Con

I accept.

I do want to point out though that Pro has not defined his terms. In the beginning of your second round, can you please define the following terms:
God
Jewish People

I also want to clarify one thing, are you arguing that it was given to the Jews through Moses by God?
Debate Round No. 1
banjos42

Pro

I can't really define God because hes not physical, but basically God is a higher, perfect being who is the creator of the world.

By Jewish people I mean the Israelites that are in the bible story, the ones that were (supposedly) slaves in Egypt. Also it includes modern day Jews, either by birth, or converting.

Yes, most of it was given to them through Moses. But the main point of my argument is that the "Old Testament" is the word of God, not how it was given.

CASE
It would be very unlikely that the bible would be as widespread as it is today, if it was a false book. If it was false or made up by a human, it wouldn't have been passed on by so many generations as truth. In the Bible There is a mass-prophecy [1] involving about three million people. The bible couldn't have originated at a later time (then this incident). If a book claims that something happens to so many people it would be easily verified or disproved.

Lets say someone gave you a book. In the book it claims that millions of people all saw a whale jump out of the water, fly across the sky, and yell at the millions of people. The person who gave you the book tells you that it is true. Would you give it to your children and tell them that it is true, without first confirming the story? Of course not! Even if you did give it to your kids they would still be able to know that it is made up because, where are the millions of people that this supposedly happened to??

My point is that the old testament is most likely a true book that is really from God. How would it have made such a huge claim and have been passed down if that claim wasn't true?

[1] Exodus chapters 19 and 20
SNP1

Con

My opponent has only defined God as being perfect, as a creator god, and not being physical. This does not define god too much. What are the properties of a perfect god?

Argument Introduction

In order for Pro's position to be upheld, all parts of it must be true.
If any of these are true, then Pro's case fails:
1) There is no god
2) God cannot interact with the material world
3) God did not interact with the material world
4) God did not inspire the writings of the Jews

Is there a god?

The first question to ask is, is there a god? If there is not a god, then there cannot be a god to inspire the writings of the Torah.

As god, for the purpose of this debate, is defined with certain attributes (a creator god), if I can show that these attributes are false, then god is falsified.

Can god have created the universe?

P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) GOd did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

Defense of Premise 1:
I am sure that this does not need much for explanation. If God created the universe, the logically god is the cause and the universe is the effect.

Defense of Premise 2:
The principals of causality require for there to be a movement of time. A before the effect, an after the cause, etc. This requires tensed facts.
This point is seemingly agreed upon by all time theorists, even William Lane Craig[1].

Defense of Premise 3:
To defend premise 3 I will be proposing that the most probable theory of time is the B-Theory of Time.
Effects like relativity and time dialation support the B-Theory of Time while refuting the A-Theory of Time (the A-Theory of Time is the theory of time that allows tensed facts to exist).

Further support for this premise comes from recent experiments in quantum mechanics. Under the B-Theory of Time, the progression of time is an illusion, and time does not really pass. If one were to have "god view", a view of the universe from outside of it, the universe would appear static.
A recent study has shown that the progress of time is an illusion caused from quantum entanglement, and that if you did have "god view" that the universe would actually appear static[2].

Could God influence the physical world?

Another point is if God could even interact with the material/physical world. If not, then God would be unable to inspire anyone to write the Torah.

P1) A fundamental force carrier is required to interact with the material.
P2) God is defined as not being physical/material.
P3) Fundamental force carriers are physical/material.
C1) God does not have any fundamental force carriers (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God cannot interact with the material (follows from P1 and C1).

Defence of Premise 1:
Modern particle physics has determined that a fundamental force carrier is a requirement to interact with matter[3].

Defense of Premise 2:
Pro, who defined god, said that god was not physical. This means that this premise is true by definition.

Defense of Premise 3:
This is also based off the current knowledge of quantum physics, that they are particles.

Is the Torah inspired by God?

Outside of the above arguments, to look at this, we should look at the origin and compilation of the Torah.

Authorship:
It is currently the consensus among scholars that the Torah was not actually written by Moses, but by different authors[4].
It is currently thought to have been compiled by 4 different sources:
1)The Jahwist
2) The Elohist
3) The Deutoronomist
4) The Priestly Source

Not only is the Torah a compilation of 4 different sources, they were written in different centuries, ranging from 900BCE-500BCE[5].

It is very unlikely that all 4 authors from these different periods of time were all inspired by god.

Conclusions:

Based off the definition of God that was provided by Pro, God is an incoherent concept that could not possibly exist. The authorship of the Torah lowers the probability that it was inspired by God.

Sources:

[1]: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com...

[2]: https://medium.com...

[3]: https://www.youtube.com...

[4]: "Reading the Pentateuch: a historical introduction" by John McDermott

[5]: "Pentateuchal Studies Today" by Gordon Wenham
Debate Round No. 2
banjos42

Pro

banjos42 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
banjos42

Pro

banjos42 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
banjos42: Why did you forfeit a round?
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Typing up my round 2 arguments made me realize how little 8000 characters can seem
Posted by banjos42 2 years ago
banjos42
Don't worry about it, it's related to the debate anyway.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Sorry that I asked for clarification in the debate and not the comments, I really want the debate and was afraid someone would take it before I got the chance if I asked here.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by PointlessQuestions 2 years ago
PointlessQuestions
banjos42SNP1Tied
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 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: Con Made Much More Convincing Arguments And Pro Forfeited Giving Con Conduct.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
banjos42SNP1Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited multiple rounds in this debate which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout the debate. Arguments - Con. Instead of delving into the arguments, this debate clearly goes to Con in regards to arguments due to the fact that Pro had the BOP and failed to maintain it by failing to provide any form of rebuttals against the challenges and arguments raised by Con. Since Con was left standing unchallenged for the remainder of the debate, he clearly wins arguments. Sources - Con. Pro utilized two chapters of the Bible, whereas Con utilized multiple, less biased, sources (not including the christian one). Due to both quality and quantity, Con wins sources. This is a clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
banjos42SNP1Tied
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 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 forfeits
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
banjos42SNP1Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
banjos42SNP1Tied
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: Forfeit.