The Instigator
JayConar
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

The bible cannot be considered to be a reliable tool to be evidenced in proving the existence of 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 6 votes the winner is...
JayConar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 704 times Debate No: 60350
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

JayConar

Pro

The bible cannot be considered to be a reliable tool to be evidenced in attempting to prove the existence of God.

Some definitions -

Reliable - Able to be trusted to provide truthful information
Existence - To exist, to be extant.
God - The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority in the Christian religion; the supreme being.
Bible - The Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments.
Evidenced - To be sourced in order to prove something.

The first round shall be for acceptance. The second round shall be for arguments, the third round shall be for rebuttals.

Good luck!
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

The Bible is the Word of God. You don't have to believe it. One day your knee will bow and your tongue will confess to the glory of God the Father that Jesus Christ is Lord. You will bow at the sound of His name and you will say He is Lord willingly in heaven with joy or against your will in the fire of Hell with bitterness. He is God who died in your place to pay for your sins, so He is just to forgive you if you believe on Him and ask God in His name to save you from Hell, and He is just to give you the death you deserve in the fire of Hell if you finalize your death trampling His blood under your feet saying there is no proof that He is God. He is risen from the dead and He is LORD!!!!
Debate Round No. 1
JayConar

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate.

I would like to note that this debate is not about whether or not God exists, nor whether or not Jesus exists or existed. I believe there are plenty of debates out there for that purpose, though. This debate is to decide whether or not the bible can be considered to be a reliable tool in proving or disproving the existence of God.

My Argument -

We have two paths that we can travel down here, so let's approach them one at a time.

If the Bible was written by men who were told what to write by God, then it should be flawless. However, the bible is strewn with contradiction. For example:

"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2KI 2:11)

...Or did he?

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (JOH 3:13)

This is just one of many contradictions in the bible. So we have to assume that if the Bible WAS written as God told those who wrote it that it should be, then God is not faultless and he makes mistakes. As God is faultless as his word is said to be (As for God, His way is blameless; The word of the LORD is tried; He is a shield to all who take refuge in Him. - Psalm: 18-30) then this proves that either God does not exist as the bible should be flawless and it isn't OR God does exist and the Bible was written simply by men with no influence from God.

So then, this debate not being about proving or disproving the existence of God, we should therefore assume the latter. God does exist but the Bible, being flawed by its many contradictions, cannot have been a product of God or men with God's influence.

Therefore we must assume that the Bible was written by men, this would explain the contradictions without pointing towards proof of the non-existence of God.

But then, how can the bible prove the existence of God if its writers have not been contacted or influenced by God. The men who wrote the bible must, therefore, have been influenced by myths, legends and assumptions which cannot be assumed to be reliable nor necessarily related to God in any way so their words cannot be held as endorsed or accepted by a Christian God and therefore the Bible's words cannot be accepted or held as necessarily true by any Christian or non-Christian as a reliable tool to be evidenced in proving the existence of God without that same Christian or non-Christian accepting that God is flawed and therefore that God does not exist which would prove further debate in proving the existence of God futile, with or without use of the Bible, for it indicates an acceptance of an absence of God's 'flawless word', the existence of which is indicated in the bible itself.

As the Bible cannot be written by God or men with God's influence, the words of the bible cannot be held as necessarily reliable in upholding the true values of God. Therefore, the Bible cannot be considered to be a reliable tool to be evidenced in proving the existence, morals, values or ethics of a Christian God.

Your turn.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

God proves Himself and has given us His Word. You won;t accept God's Word, so all you will get is God's Judgement. His Judgement always is according to His Word, and you will lose as long as you are aguing against His Word. You can't win arguing against God.
Debate Round No. 2
JayConar

Pro

Rebuttal

As I stated in the second round, the Bible cannot be seen to be God's word without accepting that God's word is flawed due to contradictions in the bible and therefore there is no God as God cannot be flawed by the virtue of the Bible which states that his word is flawless. OR you can accept that the Bible was written by men who were not told what to write by God, in which case the Bible cannot be considered to be a true representation of God's word nor his values, wishes, morals or ethics. Therefore the bible cannot be evidenced to prove the existence of God as it cannot be trusted to be reliable, I.E. provide information that can be trusted to be truthful about God or his word.

The Bible is either wrong about God's word being flawless, making it unreliable, or it wasn't written by God at all, making it an unreliable account of his word as none of the writers would have any idea what God's word would be.

Good luck to you in this debate and I hope the voters enjoy reading this debate. May the best argument win.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

You can't rebut God. His Word will remain forever and you will be judged according to His Word. You are not the judge of God's Word. God is the judge of you and He always keeps His Word. Fear God.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by JayConar 3 years ago
JayConar
After some debates, however, I do feel that no real 'debating' was done...
Posted by JayConar 3 years ago
JayConar
dsjpk5, if that is your opinion, you could have accepted the debate! :) I think the same argument that I used to debate in round 2 addresses your opinion, however.
Posted by Arasa 3 years ago
Arasa
In the matter of the bible proving God's existence, I wouldn't dream of saying that it does. If we look at Timothy, he explains what the bible is to be used for.

Now, in my personal opinion, the nature of Jesus' own existence and resurrection is proof that God exists. However, because the nature of Jesus' resurrection is still widely debated and not accepted by hardly any in the secular history community (Despite them agreeing on just about everything else in the bible as historically accurate. Save creation, the flood, and birth from a virgin), I cannot say that Jesus' resurrection provides insurmountable evidence that God exists. What I CAN say is that if Jesus was not resurrected, then Christianity is wrong and I have wasted my life thus far believing it. However, even Jesus' resurrection being proved false will not remove God's existence from the equation. It simply means that Judaism was right all along.

So then, what can we use for proof that God exists?
That, I'm afraid, I do not know the answer to. All I can do is draw conclusions based on evidence that I see... Much like a scientist does, Religious or Secular. For that endeavor, I can use the bible.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 3 years ago
AlternativeDavid
@dsjpk5 How can you deny archaeology? They literally dig stuff up from the past.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Well I can choose to deny archaeology too
Posted by Free_Th1nker 3 years ago
Free_Th1nker
This is fact; it's not up for debate. Arguing that the Bible proves the existence of god is tautological.
Posted by superbowl9 3 years ago
superbowl9
No, because there's evidence for history books (archaeology, paleontology) yet there is no evidence to show that the Bible is the word of god.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Of course, the same can be said about any history book if one chooses to doubt it's claims.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
JayConarLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Contradiction.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 3 years ago
AlternativeDavid
JayConarLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and arguments both go to Pro because Con went off topic and refused to support his claims with any evidence.
Vote Placed by Vexorator 3 years ago
Vexorator
JayConarLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: LMGIG could at least have tried....
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
JayConarLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't address any of pro's arguments, so they've all been dropped and assumed valid.
Vote Placed by JasperFrancisShickadance 3 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
JayConarLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not refute Pro in any way, even though Pro earnestly tried to get Con to give a reason why the Bible proves the existence of God in a way. I completely agree with what Con said but she did not have a good argument and could've said more. Overall Pro had a nice, resourceful, debate and gave more argument than Con so he thus gets the win.
Vote Placed by ldow2000 3 years ago
ldow2000
JayConarLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con brought nothing to the table, but instead just repeated arbitrary statements. Pro brought good points, and had better grammar.