The Instigator
Skynet
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Composer
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

There is no legitimate evidence that the Bible is inspired by God.

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...
Composer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,500 times Debate No: 30954
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (5)

 

Skynet

Con

"The total combined legitimate evidence that ANY acclaimed ' holy-text ' are the words of ANY literal Supernatural being, remains a constant zero and Posts like YOURS re-confirm that consistently!"

This was my first encounter with Composer. Sounds like fun guy. How would I know? I'm boring.

I guess "legitimate evidence" would be anything admissible in a court of law,
BOP is on me to provide at least one piece of said evidence (not proof) that the Bible contains words inspired by God. Let's see if Composer wants to back his claim, and if I can increase that constant zero to a bigger real number.
Composer

Pro

Ok well I'm still waiting for the legitimate evidence that the bible is inspired by a literal Supernatural god?
Debate Round No. 1
Skynet

Con

Witness testimony is legitimate evidence in court, and the authors of the books of the Bible have recorded what they witnessed with their own eyes and ears.

1 In the Gospel of John, the Apostle John witnessed the feeding of five-thousand people with five small barley loaves and two small fish, with enough left over to fill twelve baskets. (John 6)

In Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, Moses records numerous non-random supernatural events that he and millions of others with him witnessed.
2 Ex: parting of the Red Sea,
3 the plagues against Egypt and it's gods,
4 the earth opening and swallowing specific people,
5 a pillar of fire by night,
6 being fed for forty years by a strange wafer that accumulated with the dew,
7 being audibly spoken to,
8 and seeing direct physical actions by God. Amongst other things.

9 In Daniel 4, we have a transcript of an open letter written by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar of a prophetic dream that he would lose his mind in a very specific way. His sanity was later restored at a set time, just as the dream had said.

The apostle Matthew records
10 the death and resurrection of Christ in his gospel,
11 as well as the appearance of angels at the tomb.
12 In chapter 14 he records an identical account of the feeding of the 5000 that John witnessed.

The first-hand witness accounts of the supernatural would be admissible evidence in any legitimate investigation into the existence of the supernatural.
Composer

Pro

1. Still waiting for you to actually address the Debate Topic by YOUR providing the evidence YOU ' claimed to have ' that the bible was inspired by a Literal Supernatural god?



2. Your diversionary OFF DEBATE & NONE pertinent comments meanwhile (by your quoting Story book events alleged to have taken place in your preferred Story book land), is NO credible evidence even in the slightest for your cause, but rather testify only against it; including the fact that whatever claims were made in it, there is also NO legitimate evidence to substantiate the writers (whoever they were) are telling the Truth!

Further more: - There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gospels were written by eye witnesses of the events described in them. . . . . (Source: http://atheisttoolbox.com...)

Debate Round No. 2
Skynet

Con

Definition of EVIDENCE
1
a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2
: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices (1)

I met my burden of proof of legitimate evidence, several examples, in fact, raising Pro's zero to at least 12.

I didn't use an obscure definition of evidence, as Webster agrees that witness testimony is classified as evidence.

Pro apparently didn't even bother to:

A. look up the definition of "evidence,"

B. research who wrote the Bible: "(whoever they were)"

C. compare Biblical events with sources contemporary to Biblical accounts: "by your quoting Story book events alleged to have taken place"

D. or care to find out that places like Galilee, Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, and the Roman Empire actually existed. "in your preferred Story book land" (2)

Futhermore, Pro provides no backing to his claim that my evidence is illegitimate.

HOWEVER, at the end of round 2, Pro finally makes a claim and attempts to back it up...with a domain name that is for sale.

Vote Con.


1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...

2) http://www.robinurton.com...,

http://maps.google.com...

http://maps.google.com...

http://maps.google.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Composer

Pro

Could you point out to us WHERE you provided evidence that what was written in your bible Story book was inspired by a literal Supernatural god?

I'll continue to wait whilst you actually get to addressing the Debate Topic!



Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Composer 4 years ago
Composer
#: troll defined as - 1 n. (in Scandinavian folklore) fabulous being, esp. a giant . . . . (Pocket Oxford Dictionary/POD)

Thanks for confirming I'm a fabulous being & a successful Religion & Cult busting Giant!

Shucks!
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Did you read the rest of that comment?

My original comment was about one specific case (belief in god). You said you disagreed with it in general principle. It would be like if someone were sick with Strep throat, and I said they should get antibiotics, and you responded "Well, I don't agree with that as a general principle". In that case I wasn't saying everyone should take antibiotics, I was saying this one guy with Strep should.

And here, I wasn't saying accepting axioms is abandoning rationality (and I wouldn't really equate "axiom" to "belief"), though even with axioms there should be room for discussion and the possibility of changing your mind (such as the dialetheism I noted).
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
"Well, first off, God's existence is not an axiom; the cases are totally different."

I agree. That's why I said, "I don't agree with that as a general principle" instead of, "I don't agree with that."
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
@Philocristos:

Well, first off, God's existence is not an axiom; the cases are totally different.

Secondly, there is a difference between "I don't think anyone can change my mind on X"/"I cannot see how someone could change my mind on X" and "I will not change my mind on X even if good, valid, sound arguments against it are presented". After all, there's some debate even on the axiom you noted (Dialetheism, anyone?)

As regards to the "purpose of debate", I may have been reading into Con's statements, but he's the one who brought up changing his mind.

I disagree categorically with your "primary purpose" statement. I don't think convincing the audience is necessary to debate at all...one can have a debate with no audience, and it's still a debate. The primary purpose of debate is to present two opposite/different cases as best as possible and, in theory, change someone's mind. Could be the audience, could be your opponent, could be yourself. None of those are necessarily the "primary purpose". Heck, one can have a debate for purely entertainment or practice purposes, too (the former being your stated reason).
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
"The real question you should ask yourself, Con, is whether someone COULD change your beliefs. If it's impossible, then you've admitted you're abandoning rationality..."

I don't agree with that as a general principle. There are some things we can know with certainty, and if we know then with certainty, then it shouldn't be possible for somebody to change our beliefs about those things. In fact, it would be irrational to suppose they could. For example, I know the law of non-contradiction is true, and I don't think anybody could ever change my belief about that. But surely my unwavering belief in the law of non-contradiction doesn't make me irrational!

"...which, of course, is your prerogative but which makes debate a meaningless exercise."

I don't agree with that either. The purpose of debate isn't solely to change your opponent's mind or have your opponent change yours. In fact, that's rarely the purpose of debate. The primary purpose of debate is to persuade the audience. My own personal reason for debating is entertainment.
Posted by Skynet 4 years ago
Skynet
It is the foundation of what I know, yet I do question it, to be sure, and haven't found it lacking thus far. I regularly change many of my beliefs about theology, physical science, and people, all in an attempt to line up with what I find to be true, vs. what I have thought to be true. Have you ever questioned your axioms on which everything else you know and act are based? I'll tell you, if you haven't, it is not a comfortable thing to do, but I find it necessary from time to time.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
The real question you should ask yourself, Con, is whether someone COULD change your beliefs. If it's impossible, then you've admitted you're abandoning rationality, which, of course, is your prerogative but which makes debate a meaningless exercise.
Posted by Skynet 4 years ago
Skynet
I still stand by my beliefs: No one's convinced me otherwise, but this was a good learning experience in how to debate. Thanks for the advice everyone.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Good point, I retract the 1 source statement provisionally (I'll give benefit of the doubt that it WAS valid), however, as I noted, I awarded the point because I perceived you
To have misused your sources. I am open to changing my mind.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Granted, I think you were directing thebquestion to the more patient likespeace, but:

He can demand you justify your assertions. If you cannot, he wins by default. So a simple "Nuh-uh" isn't necessarily sufficient if you HAVE backed the assertions up, in this case it was enough because your assertions were not supported; Nuh-uh in this context is a call to make you support your assertion.

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Basically, his only burden is tearing down your case, he has no obligation to make his own.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
SkynetComposerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Just as the existence of England and America and Russia as mentioned in Harry Potter do not prove the existence of HOGWARTS, the existence of real places in the bible does not prove the existence of Jesus. As CON cannot understand at point, doubt is cast upon all he says in regards to the logical evaluation of claims in books.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
SkynetComposerTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Although no burden of proof was stipulated, I think Con implicitly accepted the burden of proof, and Pro did not. Con never made any argument to the effect that God inspired the Bible. Even if everything he said was true, it wouldn't follow that God inspired the writings. Pro seemed to recognize that, because in each round, he pressed Con to make an argument that supported Con's negation of the resolution. Con never did, so I gave arguments to Pro. I gave conduct to Con for Pro's condescending use of dysphemisms when referring to the Bible.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
SkynetComposerTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Your quoting human contrived propaganda from your proven self-contradicting Story book only reaffirms your stupidity and foolishness!
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
SkynetComposerTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for RFD.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
SkynetComposerTied
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: Con, you can't use your book as its own evidence, certainly at least not in the way you're trying to.