The Instigator
Diagoras
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Snowcop
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

The god of the bible exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Diagoras
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 868 times Debate No: 19012
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Diagoras

Con

Of course, I mean exists in the real world. Not "exists in our imagination" or "exists in our hearts" or any garbage like that.
Snowcop

Pro

The God of the Bible does exist. The bible has been proved as a historical document by using the three tests. The Internal Test, the External Test, and the Bibliographic test. The Bible passes with flying colors. If God does not exist then how would we explain The Conversion of Paul in Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 where it clearly states in Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man" and in Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed a light and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of Him that spoke to me"

The issue with the English version is that they translated it incorrectly. The Greek word 'Akouo' means both to hear and to hear and understand. So before you say that the Bible contradicts ITSELF when you translate it correctly it clearly is not. If they had then the passages would be something like this: And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. AND: And they that were with me saw indeed a light and were afraid; hearing but not understand the voice of Him that spoke to me.
Debate Round No. 1
Diagoras

Con

My opponent makes three points to prove that the god of the bible exists.

1) The internal test.

This is not explained by my opponent, so there is nothing to refute. As there is no weight to it, we can dismiss it.

2) The external test.

Just like the internal test, this also has nothing backing it or even explaining what it is. So it too, can be dismissed.

3) The bibliographic test.

I'm not sure if my opponent is referring to books in general, or simply the bible. However, this test is not explained just like the other three. But since my opponent decides to go around quoting verses, I will point out that there is nothing provided to indicate that these verses, and these books of the bible, are anything other than fiction, or at best, a complete misrepresentation of what really happened.

I would like my opponent to actually provide some meat to his next argument for me to tear apart.

Thank you.
Snowcop

Pro

Thank you for pointing that out. I completely forgot that.

Internal Test: To see whether or not the document contradicts itself.

External Test: This determines whether or not the document contradicts any "external" sources of historical facts.
(Archaeology)

Bibliographic Test: How many copies of the document were made by different people and how long before the first copy was made.

My first reference to the bible I made was to the Internal Test.

This if for the External Test: It would be impossible to name all the archaeological finds that help the bible pass this test. Let me give you a small example using the Mari Tablets. "There are 23,000 in all, and they contain quite a bit of information about the Kingdom of Mari, an ancient kingdom on the west bank of the Euphrates River. It existed before and during the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so the tablets deal with much of the same history as the Old Testament. These tablets mention King Arioch from Genesis 14, indicating that he was a real person. In addition, they mention Nahor, a city discussed in Genesis 24:10."
Debate Round No. 2
Diagoras

Con

I thank my opponent for going into what the three tests are, now I have something to dismantle.

1) Internal test.

This is not an accurate method for measuring whether or not something is true. While books that contridict themselves are known false, those that do not are not proven true. For example. I could write "unicorns are found on the dark side of the moon." That statement clearly does not contridict itself, but that doesn't mark it as true, what so freaking ever. Many ficticious books do not contridict themselves, that is partially what makes them fun stories.

2) External test.

My opponent gives a classic composition fallacy http://changingminds.org.... He assumes that because some things in the bible are shown to be true, that everything in the bible is true. Confirming that a single person mentioned in the bible likely existed does not, in any way show that god is real. No more so than showing that London mentioned in Harry Potter shows that the entire Harry Potter world is real. As such, this fails to show any evidence that the god of the bible is real.

3) Bibliographical test.

This is merely an appeal to repetition or arguement ad nauseam. http://www.csun.edu... Obviously just because something was printed a lot, does not make it any more true.

As shown all of my opponent's "tests" are not backed by logic and my opponent has shown nothing what-so-ever to support the resolution that the god of the bible is real.

Thank you.
Snowcop

Pro

Apparently my opponent never went to middle school. (Sorry to be rude but I believe that you have proved rude is ok in this debate) I take much offense that you choose to use Harry Potter as an example to help you.... WIN? Considering Harry Potter was never mentioned in an accurate historical document I believe that example is quite useless.


If you do not believe that these test are accurate then you do not believe ANYTHING historical (anything you have EVER read in text books for example) as ALL historical documents are proved to be accurate or not using the 3 tests.


Now the Bibliographic Test is the most important of them all. Depending on the amount of time passed in between the original Bible and the first copy of it shows how accurate the copy actually was. The Bible has over 24,000 copies and the first copy was made only 25 years after the ORIGINAL BIBLE! This supports today's Bible accuracy.

Since the Bible is the word of God and the Bible is considered an accurate historical document I believe I have proved that God is real in the real world. I rest my case. Good luck. :)
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by jbow1221 5 years ago
jbow1221
Just the fact that everything in this world is created so perfect down to the tiniest detail proves the existence of God. Take the bombardier beetle as an example something that amazing can happen by chance or by evolution the fact that the 2 flammable chemicals in its body are separated until the moment of secretion shows that their is an intelligent designer who is God
Posted by TGWoA 5 years ago
TGWoA
I am a new member and have not participated in 3 debates yet, so I am not able to vote. However, if I were to vote I would agree with Diagoras. I see Snowcop's argument making to many fallacious assumptions. Two things that influenced my voting were the statements: "If you do not believe that these test are accurate then you do not believe ANYTHING historical (anything you have EVER read in text books for example) as ALL historical documents are proved to be accurate or not using the 3 tests" and "The Bible has over 24,000 copies and the first copy was made only 25 years after the ORIGINAL BIBLE! This supports today's Bible accuracy. "

The first is fallacious because not all history is necessarily true it simply represents someone's theory that is supported by evidence. When dealing with ancient history, we have limited viewpoints to even begin trying to discern the "truth" of events. Also, to say that simply because someone doesn't believe one thing dismisses the possibilities that they believe other things, is not logically sound. For example, many people believe that the Bible is true, but if we follow your logic for it being true then the Qu'ran is as well. However, there are many people who believe one holds truth and not the other. Your reasoning would then imply that all people do not believe any history. Also, it would imply that the Qu'ran is just as true as the Bible.

The second quote is misguided in a way, for the term "original bible" is ambiguous. The old testament existed long before the new testament and the new testament was not drafted until 30+ years after Jesus was crucified and so they are not accounts of event when they were happening, but accounts of what the authors recalled. (http://bit.ly...) Before the Bible was canonized (what is known today as the Holy Bible was not officially canonized until c. 397 A.D.) http://bit.ly..., it existed in separate texts and not all the texts were approved to be in the Holy Bible.
Posted by Diagoras 5 years ago
Diagoras
I'm sorry for the mix up then.
Posted by Snowcop 5 years ago
Snowcop
An just by the way Diagoras, IM A SHE! Not a he. :) Thank you!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
DiagorasSnowcopTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was a little rude, so conduct goes to Con. Con also conveyed more convincing arguments with his refutation.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
DiagorasSnowcopTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro offered no relevant arguments. He established that one person in the bible really existed, and one town. And he said there are lots of copies. That doesn't make the bible accurate, and it doesn't make god exist. If Pro had a point, he failed to make it. Con calmly demolished each of Pro's arguments. Conduct point: Con's mention of Harry Potter was an opportunity for Pro to clarify, to help us understand his argument. Instead, he turned insulting.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
DiagorasSnowcopTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro established three tests for the veracity of a text, con provided several counter-narratives for why the tests are bad. Pro then claimed that then you cannot believe in anything historical. Just because history does not exist does not mean God does. Pro should focus carefully on the topic, and not waste their first round anticipating counter-arguments to arguments they hadn't yet made. 5:2 con win.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
DiagorasSnowcopTied
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: pro's three "tests" were poor arguments, the pro's only other argument that the bible has been printed thousands of times, so it must be accurate. failure to initially provide a source or explain the tests cost pro conduct. not a necessarily good debate
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 5 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
DiagorasSnowcopTied
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: Con refuted Pro's weak appeals to the Bible, and Pro got offended. The debate is about God - the consistency of the bible or whether it directly contradicts historical evidence are of little relevance here. Pro would have been on stronger ground appealing to ontological, cosmological, or teleological arguments.