The Instigator
leonitus2464
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
harrisondw
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The bible has no credibility.

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 1 vote the winner is...
leonitus2464
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 862 times Debate No: 61076
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

leonitus2464

Pro

I'll be arguing that the bible has no credibility.
Round1:acceptance
Round2:debate
Round 3: debate
Round4:conclusion
harrisondw

Con

I accept your challenge!
Debate Round No. 1
leonitus2464

Pro

First off let's look at how plausible events in the bible are. Events like a global flood that goes above the mountains is not plausible events like putting two of every animal on a boat made of wood in ancient times is impossible. The story of Noah is jus one example the creation account how could days pass before the sun why did earth and it's life forms take six days to create when it only took one day to create the rest of the universe how does that make sense. This doesn't fair well for the bibles credibility because of how implausible and rediculus the events are.
harrisondw

Con

Under the laws of science that we live in, a flood the size of Noah's ark is very unlikely, that is true. However, we must remember that GOD created the flood. God does not work under the laws of science, because he is a god. That is also how the universe was made. God has infinite power to do anything.
Also, finding two of every animal back then was plausible. Today, with the number of animals it would not be. Of course, creationists do not believe in the extensive evolution that non creationists believe in. However, we do believe in evolution to a certain point. It is proven that animals will change based on there environment. We believe that closely related animals are a form of evolution. For example, there are thousands of different types of worms. So in that case, having two of each animal on a boat was plausible
Speaking of Noah's ark, a boat that matches the size descriptions in the bible show that the Ark has been found in turkey
http://www.sunnyskyz.com...-

I believe to prove the bible is credible, it would be wise to prove anti creationism not credible.
If the Big Bang theory was true, all planets would be spinning clockwise. However, a few planets are spinning counter clockwise. The Big Bang says that energy was spinning rapidly clockwise, which means if that were the case, all planets would be spinning clockwise.
Also, it is believed that the first living organism was created when it began raining on Earth, and a pool of the rain and volcanic rocks created a single celled organism. However, it is proven that life is never created by a non living thing.
Debate Round No. 2
leonitus2464

Pro

Your point with Noah's ark doesn't improve credibility of the bible. You need to prove your god exists in order for that claim to work but god isn't somthing you can prove it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis that and no evidence for the Christian god and the link you provided states that their is some cover up of the truth now you have to prove that a conspiracy exists. You also brought up evolution without acknowledging the fact that animals need ginetic diversity for offspring to not be deformed or impaired so evolution would be hindered by it just being two of every animal on one boat wouldn't work because you would need tons of additional families of that species for the species to have non deformed offspring which means the boat would need to be bigger.

http://humanorigins.si.edu...
harrisondw

Con

My points on Noah's Ark are meant to prove that Noah's Ark did happen, therefore making the bible credible and that my god exists.
It is true that having only two of every animal may cause deformations due to inbreeding. However, not all animal newborns that are created through inbreeding are deformed. For example, wolf packs, if isolated, may start inbreeding. Even during the middle ages, kings who wanted there descendant to have parents who are both part of the same genetic family would often have a child with a cousin or a sister.
Also, could you please refute my arguments about the big bang and evolution?
I would also like to mention Near Death Experiences. I know that it is easy to say that they are fake, but many people have reported seeing heaven, and almost all of them report seeing the exact same thing
https://www.youtube.com...
(Since it is a youtube video, I would recommend watching sermons and videos of those who were interviewed for some proof. But this video just about sums it up)
Also, there is a phenomenon right now where people will just fall down during a sermon. This is called being "slain in the spirit." You can simply search up videos of this
Healings are also something that is occuring
https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 3
leonitus2464

Pro

Your points did nothing to prove the story. Your not even
Proving you god exists so that doesn't make your point any better. Near death experiences are a reaction of the brain not a supernatural event. The United States Air Force triggered near death experiences with a centrifuge test multiple times.

http://www.near-death.com...

Now for evolution you said than it only goes with environment which is only somewhat true. Animals do adapt to certain environments but it's a long slow process that takes millions of years to have any significant change and if it's a long enough time that animal becomes a new species. Like how apes ( not apes as we know them today) became humans. That's the best summarized explanation of how evolution works.
Now the Big Bang which you never elaborated on when you said that bit about planets spinning clockwise. The Big Bang theory says that the universe began and expanded farther and farther and the energy and matter that was the early universe started to become things like stars and planets. That has nothing to do with planets spinning clockwise. Your point about inbreeding does not apply to all animal most of the time incest results in deformed offspring plus if a large portion of the animals only had one offspring that would cease their blood line which would in turn doom their species if it was really an all knowing god a flood wouldn't have been nessisary. This doesn't look good for the bibles credibility.
harrisondw

Con

harrisondw forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Uniscious 2 years ago
Uniscious
The bible isn't designed to be credible.
Posted by leonitus2464 2 years ago
leonitus2464
the fact that people find value in something doesn't make it credible because its value and interpretation that fits their world view that takes credibility away from the bible.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
The simple fact that you say that people view the Bible in different ways disproves your topic. Obviously people have not only found one level of meaning in it, but many different levels of meaning. This means that the Bible has far more credibility than you think. If your view was the ONLY way that the Bible could be interpreted then you can make a case that your interpretation is wrong and therefore the Bible has no credibility. However, as you have said, the interpretation of the various stories is myriad. People have found many deeper meanings in them. The credibility of the Bible is not limited by one person's narrow view of it.
Posted by leonitus2464 2 years ago
leonitus2464
No it's not that simple because interpretation is different for lots of people. You don't know if your interpretation is right because it means different things for different people.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I have found that the bible is so simple to understand we need help to misunderstand it.It is easy to understand if we do as Paul did, count all our religious training as dung and just take God at his word.
Posted by leonitus2464 2 years ago
leonitus2464
Interpretation is different for everyone that doesn't improve it's credibility as an actual account for anything.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
The fact that you say the Bible has NO credibility has tied you into a box that you cannot get out of. This is especially true when you go on to insist on a strict word-for-word interpretation of the Bible. If anyone interprets the Bible in any other way then profound meaning and credibility can be shown. The Bible consists of numerous books. All anyone need do is point out any meaning which can be drawn from ANY of them, whether they be Old or New Testament or explain how and why the various books were written and how they are to be understood in context to win. If you actually feel that the message of love and the brotherhood of man which was taught by Christ has no credibility I truly do feel sorry for you.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
God says, whatsoever any man sows, that is what he will reap. God says that the borrower is servant to the lender. God says that everyone is responsible for their own words and actions. God says not to have any other providers(gods) before him. That would outlaw socialism.God says not to covet another mans wife and goods. Breaking them destroys a society .God says not to murder. God says not to steal. Jesus said to treat others as you would want to be treated.Jesus says that our words will determine our destiny. These are just a few things that are very wise to listen to.The bible is full of wisdom, if you so choose to look for them.
Posted by leonitus2464 2 years ago
leonitus2464
"the quality of being convincing or believable." This is the definition I'm using.
Posted by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
Semantics can win this one
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
leonitus2464harrisondwTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. As to arguments, Pro gave some attacks on the credibility, but of specific things and not the bible as a whole, and Con gave some specific things, most of which seemed not to really support credibility. Still, Pro had the BoP. The arguments on both sides were just so lacking in completeness that I can't really decide either way--though I generally award a tie to the side without BoP, in this case I think that enough of the debate sailed past the debaters that it's hard to say that with certainty. So I'm going with the definite point: Conduct. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.