The Instigator
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points
The Contender
ozziegirl
Pro (for)
Losing
43 Points

There is undeniable evidence that God exists

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,808 times Debate No: 6614
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (63)
Votes (13)

 

Tatarize

Con

My opponent is to establish there is undeniable evidence that God exists. I am intended to tear that notion down.

By God, I mean the God of one of the monotheistic Abrahamic religions.
ozziegirl

Pro

Before I begin this debate, I would like to thank my opponent for bringing up this topic.

Take a look at your computer. What do you see? Perhaps you may see a label that says "Dell" or "Mac" on your monitor. Why is that? Well, it's for the obvious reason: a company created your specific computer. Now, let's imagine something rather humorous: your computer appeared on your desk out of nowhere. It sounds crazy, right? Well, it is. It would be scientifically impossible for your computer to appear out of nowhere.

Let's take my comparison a step further with the Big Bang theory. We have two scenarios: 1) The Big Bang Theory; the Earth appeared from nothingness or 2) God is the intelligent creator of this world. Because it would make no sense otherwise, I affirm the following resolution: There is undeniable evidence that God exists.

First, to prove that God exists, we must look at the sources. A familiar source would be the Bible. How do we know the Bible is reliable?

The Bible is known as "the most reliable ancient source" according to an article written by Norman L. Geisler. He says, "The Old Testament manuscript reliability is based on three factors: their abundance, dating, and accuracy." According to Norman L. Geisler, and several other sources, there have been some 10,000 Old Testament manuscripts found and the Dead Sea Scrolls produced 600. Their dates range before the end of the first century A.D. As to their accuracy, "comparative studies reveal word-for-word identity in 95% of the text. Only 13 small changes were made in Isaiah. After 1,000 years of copying, there were no changes in meaning and almost no change in wording."

As for the New Testament, British manuscript scholar Sir Frederick Kenyon wrote, "The authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as firmly established." With nearly 5,700 Greek manuscripts found, they were all surprisingly accurate. Greek scholar A. T. Robertson said that, "only a thousandth part of the entire text" has a textual concerning, placing the New Testament as the "best known for any book in the ancient world" with 99.9% accuracy. There is no questioning the accuracy of this document.

As I have proven, the Bible is written accurately, and in turn is the most accurate historical document in the world. But does this mean that the people who wrote it were accurate? Does this prove there truly is a God? Perhaps all these men could have been lunatics. But think about this: Over 10,000 documents declaring the same historical content for the Old Testament, and 5,700 Greek manuscripts all word-for-word documents affirming the New Testament. Does this make about 15,000 different people, all with a different background and living in a different era, lunatics? Would that seem a little silly to you, to think that over 6,000 years when the Bible was being written, 15,000 different individuals were all writing down lies over the years? It would be absurd to think so. Therefore, with the evidence I have shown to you, the Bible is accurate and is very reliable.

Secondly, according to an article written by scientist Walter L. Bradley, in order for the universe to exist, there must be five complicated processes to go through to create life anywhere in the universe. Then, after each of those complex requirements have been fulfilled, there should be at least 50 more that is necessary for life to continue to exist in our universe. With a mix of sufficient molecules, perfected DNA and RNA, the capability for something to stabilize life with that cannot be broken, liquid that would suffice, temperatures that would keep living creatures alive, long term sources of energy to keep life going, and the balance of chemical reactions that are essential to life, it would be difficult to believe that none of this was planned. According to the article, "God has satisfied the many requirements for life in three remarkable ways: the elegant mathematical form that is encoded in nature and that we call 'the laws of nature'; the fine-tuning of 19 universal constants (e.g. The speed of light, the gravity force constant, the mass of the electron, and the unit of charge); and the unbelievably demanding initial conditions that God had to set." Scientifically, it is possible that God created the universe and everything in it. But does that prove God exists?

Allow me to go back to the computer analogy. If you've ever seen the inside of a computer, it has many parts to it, all working together to create what you see on the monitor. The way a computer is set up, with all the many parts to it, is a product of a creator. This is what William Paley's reason was to conclude intelligent design was probable, and very much so undeniable. An article written by William Dembski said, "Darwin appeared to show that the design of the world was unreal—that science had dispensed with any need for design. By showing that design is indispensable to our scientific understanding of the natural world, intelligent design is breathing new life into the design argument and at the same time overturning the widespread misconception that science has disproved the Christian faith."

Thirdly, evolution is not as reliable as scientists make it seem. Evolution is the process to describe how plants an animals came into being. According to an article by Phillip Johnson, "The primary flaw in the story of [evolution] is that all plants and animals are packed with information—the complicated instructions that coordinate the many processes enabling the body and brain to function. Even Richard Dawkins, the most famous living of Darwin's theory, admits that every cell in a human body contains more information than all the volumes of an encyclopedia, and everyone of us has trillions of cells in his or her body, which have to work together in marvelous harmony." This is true; another reason to believe that there is evidence of God's existence. What scientists fail to explain is how intelligence can exist within the boundaries of evolution.

Fourthly, evidence outside of the Bible proves Biblical ideas. (I've posted articles for each, so feel free to read them for yourself.) In 2003, Peter Elmer discovered what was most likely Pharaoh's chariot from Exodus found in the Red Sea (http://www.wnd.com...). "I am 99.9 percent sure I picked up a chariot wheel," Peter Elmer tells WorldNetDaily after two diving trips to the Gulf of Aqaba branch of the sea. "It was covered in coral."

Noah's ark was found on the mountains of Ararat in 1960. (http://www.arkdiscovery.com...
http://www.wyattmuseum.com...) With the perfect shape and measurements, containing petrified wood, comprising of the skeleton of a boat, and radar scans showing "a regular pattern of timbers inside the ark formation, revealing keels, keelsons, gunnels, bulkheads, animal chambers, ramp system, door in right front, two large barrels in the front," Noah's ark has been scientifically proven to be found.

As well as Roman evidence proving the existence of Christ, the first-century Roman Taticus, one of the most reliable ancient historians to ever have lived, talks about Christ, how he suffered under Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tibernius. (http://www.gotquestions.org...).

Biblical kings match up with other sources (http://www.sciencenews.org...) (http://www.haaretz.com...).

Here's a site you can check out:
http://www.leaderu.com...

I have offered proof that:

1)The Bible is reliable
2)For a universe to be possible, so must be God
3)Evolution cannot explain how intelligence was created without God
4)Other evidence proves the Bible true

Because I have proven there is undeniable evidence that God exists, I respectfully ask for ask for an affirmative vote on the judge's ballot.
Debate Round No. 1
Tatarize

Con

First off, I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

My opponent offered four main points to provide that there is undeniable evidence that God exists. Each point fails in a number of key and fundamental ways. They do not rise to the point of being undeniable evidence, rather they are not even good evidence.

My opponent argues:
1) The Bible is reliable.
2) For a universe to be possible, so must be God.
3) Evolution cannot explain how intelligence was created without God
4) Other evidence proves the Bible true.

---

First, the Bible is not reliable. It depicts a vast number of events which did not actually occur. Archeology has done a lot of research on these topics and have found time and again that rather than being an accurate record, the texts are clearly a product of their time. Genesis, Noah's Ark, the Exodus, the Conquest of Israel, the Empire of David and Solomon are largely found to be utter fiction.

The more we look at the events claimed by the Bible the more we are finding out that they didn't happen as suggested and that the story are simply etiology. They are explaining and glorifying a past that didn't actually happen by taking from the works of the surrounding culture. The psalms, Noah's ark, and the given pantheon of gods depicted in the Bible are all taken from the region as are the people themselves.

Further the claims that the early records are all very similar to each other is absolutely false. They actually varied greatly from text to text. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a fantastic insight into our understanding of exactly how diverse the ideas and texts of early Judaism were. These are actually secondary points from the actual argument we are presented with:

A) We find that the texts show remarkably homogeny.
B) We find that the translation and copying over the years did not change the nature of the texts.
C) The text we have today is a reliable copy of the original text.
D) God exists.

The problems are as follows:
* The texts are extremely diverse.
* The translation process actually changed and altered vast amounts of the text over the years as we can see from text to text.
* The texts we have today are not a reliable copy of the original text.

However, more pressing is the fact that a perfect copy of a work of fiction is still a work of fiction. The argument is completely pointless! The accuracy of transcription has nothing to do with truth of the words.

To establish truth she suggests that I'd be calling the 15,000 people crazy. I'm sorry but, no. Between lunatics and people-would-never-have-anything-to-do-with-something-other-than-an-absolutely-non-fiction-book, there's a wide range of individuals. We typically call them most people.

---

Secondly, my opponent argued that for the universe to be possible God must be too. This is not the case. My opponent argues in her introduction that God is needed for the start of the universe or else we're suggesting everything just popped out of nothing. Whereas if we apply the same argument for God we are left with the idea that either God popped out of nothing or was created by a super God. Then the same problem arises again. It simply doesn't work.

The Big Bang theory does not say that the Earth appeared from nothingness. Rather that the universe began expanding from a single point about 13.73 billion years ago. It actually says very little about where the original energy came from but many cosmologists have pointed out that it is entirely possible that the universe is simply zero sum. That the old joke, "Why is there time? So that everything doesn't happen at once!", might actually be pretty close to right. That everything only exists because there is time and space to keep it apart. That if you added up all the positive energies and negative energies in the universe it might very well turn out to be equal. So rather than having the universal equation of the big bang be 0 = 1, it may very well be 0 = 1 + (-1).

Pro further argues that the constants of the universe are actually so finely set that we require a divine fine tuner to make the universe possible. We don't have any idea what kinds of universes would be formed by different constants, a wide array of them might lead to fine universes. The speed of light is equal to 1c, the gravity force is equal to 1g, the electron charge is -1e. The constants we hear so much about are really conversion factors from the natural units into human units. Miles / hour, meters/second, furlongs/fortnight are all made up units. The natural units of such things are always one. Moreover, they are all tied together (relativity et al). If the speed of light were faster the charge of the electron would change. If the gravitational force were different then Planck's constant would be different. They couldn't move independently anyhow.

My opponent also claims that the requirements for life are a vast and delicate balance; they aren't. The biochemistry of early life is largely unknown and beyond being unknown we don't even have a good grasp on the most basic requirements. It's impossible to say which molecules are needed and in what quantities and at what initial complexities are required. We created base nucleotides in simple jars of goop, and we don't see any fathomable roadblock from creation of the basic aminos to creation of complex life. If anything the jump from single to multicellular life is probably a larger step than from life to non-life. Further, life evolves to the environment rather than the environment to the life. If this planet were unable to produce any form of life (the number and types of forms possible are unimaginable) then there are certainly more planets around the 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 other stars in our universe (that's just the number of stars we can see). With that many chances and such a wide variety of possible worlds and possible lifeforms, it's not very odd that life should arise. Now, considering this, realize that we wouldn't be having this debate on only planet where life didn't arise. The chances that life arose here 100% because we're here talking about it. It couldn't be any other way.

Thirdly, Dembski is wrong. Darwin didn't show that the appearance of design in the natural world was wrong. He showed how the designing work could be done by reproduction and heredity. What Paley observed as intricate structures needing an explanation, Darwin explained how they could form without any guiding hand. Darwin's insight was a mechanism to do the work Paley rightfully saw needed to have been done. There's certainly a lot of useful information in DNA, but that doesn't imply that evolution fails to explain how it got there; it does (you're simply making this silly assertion bold-faced). While the brain seems to be very impressive. The basic functioning of a neuron can be explained in a few minutes. We have a skull full of them and they do some pretty awesome stuff working together, but so do muscles and bones.

---

Finally, my opponent gave a list of "other evidence" which simply amounted to nonsensical stories that only the incredulous would believe, which also require massive leaps to accept.

* Wheel doesn't mean Chariot. Chariot doesn't mean Pharaoh's Chariot from the Exodus story. There's plenty of wheels kicking. Also, he didn't find a chariot wheel.

* "This is Noah's Ark!" - No. That's a ridge. It's made of rock.

* Tacitus records the existence of Christians. Nobody disputes Christians exist.

* The existence of a copper mine does not mean it's a copper mine of a large empire that we can't find any trace of. It's a copper mine.

---

In short, my opponent has failed to meet her burden. In attempting to establish that undeniable evidence that God exists she presented laughable arguments for the accuracy of the Bible, and poor understanding of science.
ozziegirl

Pro

Before I begin my debate, I would like to start my second round with a testimony of mine. 4 years ago--I was only 10, but I still felt a longing for a connection to the God I had learned about in Sunday school. One weekend, my family and I were on a camping trip. There were gravel roads everywhere, which I enjoyed riding my bike on. On our last night out, it was getting really late and I wanted to ride my bike one more time before I went back to my camper. Well, I took a shortcut down a really large gravel hill and my bike slid out of control. My bike flipped and I landed on my head. I was unable to stand. Blood had covered my eyes so much that I couldn't open them and I thought I had gone blind. So I sat, knowing it would be impossible to go back to my campsite by myself and I couldn't see if I tried. But I heard voices next to me, grabbing my hand and helping me up. They took warm rags to my eyes and told me what I had hoped to hear: I wasn't blind; I had hit just above my eye. When I opened my eyes, there were two women (who said they were nurses) with a pile of clean, wet towels hanging out by their camper. A man got in a pickup truck and put my bike in the trunk while the two ladies helped me ride on the back. I don't remember much after that except I finally arrived at my campsite. When my parents tried to thank them a week later, they were never found. I would've never made my way back if they hadn't been there. It was ironic: the two women were nurses, they just happened to have a bunch of wet rags next to them, the man just happened to have a pickup truck a few feet away from where I crashed, the woman just happened to tell me words of comfort, and I just happened to crash next to the people who potentially saved my life.

How do I know God exists? I've experienced His work myself. There are too many "just happenings" that occur to tell us it must be more than luck. It has to be God. And this is just one simple story; I could tell you more stories of how He's proved himself to me! And God hasn't just showed himself to me, he's shown himself to others:

I could give you thousands of testimonies of how God has revealed himself in their lives! But for the sake of time, I won't share any more.

Now, I would like to address some of my opponents arguments:

For starters, I would like to point out my opponent has failed to provide ANY evidence against the arguments I provided that support Biblical occurrences, therefore I would like to ask that my opponent be specific with his attacks. He has made simply assertions with no proof to back anything he says up.

Secondly, my opponent argues, "Empire of David and Solomon are largely found to be utter fiction." In November 2008, archaeologists discovered what was probably the remains of David's kingdom found in the Valley of Elah where the Bible says his kingdom was (http://www.sfgate.com...). I also gave you some evidence of a broken pot with King David's name written on it in my first constructive. If that isn't enough, please let me know exactly how much evidence you wish for me to provide.

My opponent stated, "They are explaining and glorifying a past that didn't actually happen by taking from the works of the surrounding culture." This is like saying: the Egyptians wrote hieroglyphs about their lives, but they were all just stories that "didn't actually happen by taking the works of the surrounding culture." Remember: the Bible is a historical record, not a bunch of made-up stories bunched into a book.

Thirdly, my opponent mentioned, "Further the claims that the early records are all very similar to each other is absolutely false. They actually varied greatly from text to text." However, my opponent did not explain this idea, therefore it is unclear as to how they are varied at all.

He also made a point to say, "The texts we have today are not a reliable copy of the original text." Yet again, he has not given any reason to believe this is true. I have given evidence in my first constructive to prove this is true.

Fourthly, my opponent mentioned, "Whereas if we apply the same argument for God we are left with the idea that either God popped out of nothing or was created by a super God." This is not the case. God neither popped out of nothing, nor was he created by a super God. In Genesis 1 (as I'm sure my opponent is familiar with) talks about God creating the universe, which is also the God my opponent defined in his beginning statement, therefore contradicting himself on his own definition of "God".

My opponent brings up the Big Bang theory. He said the universe began from a single point. Where did the single point come from, if there was no God? Again, I'm going back to the simple analogy you disapproved at the beginning of my constructive. It is scientifically impossible that something (and something being the single point) can come out of nothing. Pure logic can tell you that something cannot come out of nothing.

Fifthly, my opponent brought up, "Whereas if we apply the same argument for God we are left with the idea that either God popped out of nothing or was created by a super God. The biochemistry of early life is largely unknown and beyond being unknown we don't even have a good grasp on the most basic requirements." I would like to thank my opponent for agreeing with my argument. He has made it clear that evolutionists have yet to understand the requirements for life to exist. Yet, I have made it very clear with evidence from my first constructive that life, intelligence, and a world is impossible without God.

Sixthly, my opponent can insult me about my "poor understanding of science" and explain the processes (which I am aware of), but he has failed to answer any of my questions regarding intelligence. How did intelligence come about? It doesn't take a genius to find flaws in the theory of evolution (which is still considered a theory).

I have a simple question for my opponent: What you consider "undeniable evidence"? Just an explanation of his resolution, whether it be detailed or simple, I would greatly appreciate.

My opponent can deny all of my evidence, but my evidence still stands. I do not expect my opponent to agree, but I would like to respectfully point out that all of the evidence I have proven is authentic and direct, yet my opponent gave NO evidence disproving ANY of my arguments—he simply gave me his thoughts and scientific processes. My opponent has not given me anything to disprove God. And I disagree with my opponent; I have met my burden of evidence to prove God's existence, and that is why I respectfully ask for an affirmative vote.
Debate Round No. 2
Tatarize

Con

Undeniable evidence is evidence which cannot be denied. The last round of a debate is a poor place to come to the realization that the initial topic can be won by simply denying everything. I've done the topic justice as should be existed but, it is accurate to note that by simply saying "I deny all evidence that God exists" proves the resolution by definition.

Your evidence stands but it really is bad evidence. It isn't evidence for the existence of God, usually it's some slight evidence that there exist somethings science hasn't answered yet. In the past God was proved by thunder as the hammer of Thor and god created all the living things and their arrangement on this planet. We explained those things. Other than that you suggest that some historical events occurred in the Bible and therefore God exists. Well Marvell comics just depicted the election of Barack Obama so clearly the X-Men are real.

That's not undeniable evidence (I deny it), and it isn't even good evidence. In fact, it's rather silly.

----

Testimonials? Really? Your story is that you crashed on your bike and people helped you. You know what happened when I crashed my bike as a kid. People helped me. You know what happens when any kid crashes their bike? People help them. Cloth isn't hard to come by. Neither are trucks on dirt roads. You scraped your scalp and bled. You know dangerous that is? It isn't (I assume you have no bleeding disorders). It bleeds like the dickens but is pretty harmless. It stops after a minute or two. I donate blood every 8 weeks or so, and that's probably more dangerous and it's completely harmless too.

I hate to seem callous, but that's pretty lame. That's not evidence of anything except the obvious fact that people will help a hurt little girl.

There are coincidences. Seriously, they happen all the time. They honestly just happen. They are statistically likely to happen. Miracle waters should produce a 1 in a million miracle every million times or so. People should have cloth handy quite often. Trucks and transportation are similarly very common.

You could give me millions of testimonials even of people directly talking with God. The evidence is necessarily first order evidence. The evidence to you cannot be seen as compelling to me because it wasn't given to me. To me it is hearsay and necessarily more likely the result of a deceived person, delusion or lying than of being truth. No testimonial could ever be seen as compelling. Similarly I must discount the testimonials of those claiming to be abducted by aliens or possessed by demons.

I pointed out exactly why your supposed evidence for God was nothing of the sort. Evidence for 10th century artifacts are seen to be instantly evidence for the Empires of David and Solomon. They always start out claiming to be 10th century and then say 9th century and then say 7th century or so for all of the claims. Even if there were some 10th century sites, they would still be rare. There simply was no great empire of the time. Finding some remains at the Valley of Elah is just that, remains. They are more compelling than your rock formation and claim that that is Noah's Ark, but no more compelling than anything else. It doesn't claim to say David, it claims to be Hebrew and even that assessment is rather vague. There's another later text that says "House of David" but that in itself is pretty poor evidence. There should be massive amounts of evidence for a great empire as such... in reality there's nearly nothing. Even if there were good evidence for 10th century sites, it still wouldn't prove the Bible true about the God claims.

Many of the Egyptian hieroglyphs include stories about gods. Am I to believe that those are real too? If so, are you to start worshiping Ra?

With the Bible we find the psalms in the local prayers, Noah's ark in the Epic of Gilgamesh and other outright thefts of stories as such. I'm not making the claim out of boldfaced concoction. I am saying it because that is what a large amount of evidence compels us to believe. They wrote to glorify their past. When we check out what they wrote and look at their real past, we find a completely different story.

To see how they vary from text to text you would need to look at several different texts. It wouldn't be hard as no two are seemingly the same. They vary greatly with additional material added and material removed and no indication as to why we have the version we have other than luck and happenstance. The point is largely an attempt to note that the Bible was created by the people who lived at the time and for purposes other than recording history. The texts progressed, grew, and evolved over the years. They took different turns and included different texts and changed as the years went on. They are historical, insofar, as they are the product of people within history. They are not truth in the depicted events, which analysis suggest is largely fictional.

In short, the Bible is not proof of God. Using the Bible to try to prove God is like using a comic to try and prove Superman.

Citing the Bible to prove God as my opponent does by referring to Genesis 1 in her fourth point is circular because her entire attempt is to use the Bible to prove God. Pointing out that just magicking god into the picture is unacceptable because you could just as easily assume the universe exists (because it does) and leave it at that. You create an infinite regress by making an answer that answers nothing and raises a larger question.

--

Where did the original point of the Big Bang come from if not super-intelligent half-fairy half-goblin who steals socks? The question is being worked on, but the existence of a question is not evidence for the existence of God. It isn't good evidence and certainly isn't undeniable evidence. Further, it is scientifically possible that something comes from nothing. In fact, it happens all the time in the quantum world. Things just pop out of nowhere. Electrons and positrons ripping out of spacetime just to crash back into each other, particles escaping nuclei for no reason whatsoever, and flows of electrons jumping from their current location to somewhere else. The world at the quantum level works in ways we just can't get our heads around. Such events are the basis for many technologies. We're typing on computers which can't work, using nuclear power, and cell phones all made popular by these odd events. It may just be that within the confines of artificial time some events are not like those we see in our everyday life.

--

The question of the minimal requirements is a tractable one. We are making good strides in figuring out how such biochemistry could move towards evolving forms. Intelligence is completely possible without what we would see as life. There's no reason to assume God is a requirement anymore than there is a reason to assume a 'super-intelligent half-fairy half-goblin who steals socks' is a requirement. I can't remotely fathom how the argument works in your head but intelligence is absolutely a survival adaptation. The more intelligent species quickly progress whereas those who don't progress don't. That's the requirement for evolution and it is certainly met.

The fact that my opponent doesn't understand how evolution works (want to debate on that issue?) is an example of the poor understanding of science. The theory of evolution is a theory because it is a model to understand the world. It explains a large set of data with a robust set of facts which has been repeatedly tested over 150 years and always has proved triumphant. Intelligence, much like flight and the ability to digest cellulose, are adaptations. Those organisms with the adaptations do better than those who don't and therefore have more offspring and do better in the struggle for survival.

--

Vote Con.
ozziegirl

Pro

First, I must explain why I asked my opponent for his definition of "undeniable evidence." I am not stupid—I know what it means. But again, I want to ask what he would find "undeniable evidence" or "evidence that is undeniable." If my opponent does not answer my question with what he would find specifically as "undeniable evidence" then it will simply make my opponent look uncomfortable giving me what he would find "undeniable evidence." I don't want my opponent to tell me that he wants undeniable evidence, I want my opponent to give me what he would find as undeniable evidence, not tell me "evidence that is undeniable." I would clearly ask that my opponent stop trying to get around it and answer the question.

Also, he can deny my evidence all he wants. That's not the resolution. The resolution states: There is undeniable evidence that God exists. The definition of undeniable doesn't say, "Anything that Tatarize finds undeniable." My evidence is undeniable, and he has failed to prove ANY evidence otherwise.

As for my opponent saying, "Well Marvell comics just depicted the election of Barack Obama so clearly the X-Men are real." I would like to point out that we aren't talking about comic books, we're talking about historical documents (in this case, the Bible). Unless my opponent is suggesting comic books are historical documents, then he has given me a silly analogy and yet again has failed to attack my case directly, but is trying to stumble around the argument.

Secondly, my opponent can deny my testimony, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and that doesn't mean there was no supernatural intervention. And I find it rather humorous that my opponent is trying to explain MY happening with reasons such as "rags aren't hard to come by." He's sounding desperate, nitpicking at everything at my very own story. It is illogical to deny my experience! It is illogical to deny the other testimonials I gave. Has my opponent had any experiences with evolution? Of course not.

Thirdly, my opponent says, "I pointed out exactly why your supposed evidence for God was nothing of the sort. Evidence for 10th century artifacts are seen to be instantly evidence for the Empires of David and Solomon." This fact is useless if he doesn't provide evidence to support his logic. But I have provided some archaeological findings that relate to King David's kingdom in my previous rounds. Here's even a picture of a stone stele with records of King David (http://www.mfa.gov.il...).

Fourthly, my opponent brought up, "Many of the Egyptian hieroglyphs include stories about gods. Am I to believe that those are real too? If so, are you to start worshiping Ra?" This is a desperate assumption made by my opponent. I was not talking about their gods, I was talking about the historical content of it.

Look again at what I said: "My opponent stated, "They are explaining and glorifying a past that didn't actually happen by taking from the works of the surrounding culture." This is like saying: the Egyptians wrote hieroglyphs about their lives, but they were all just stories that "didn't actually happen by taking the works of the surrounding culture." Remember: the Bible is a historical record, not a bunch of made-up stories bunched into a book."

My opponent knows noted that the Egyptian gods were stories. Perhaps he could actually attack my case instead of fumbling around for arguments that have nothing to do with our debate topic.

Fifthly, my opponent says, "When we check out what they wrote and look at their real past, we find a completely different story." Please give me an example for this, and when you try, you'll find your claim is not true.

My opponent talked about how the texts progressed into what we have today. Would you like to know how many times the Bible has been translated? Once. We translated the Bible we have today from the original Greek Bible. (http://4simpsons.wordpress.com...) It seems you're confused on the process of translating the Bible.

Sixthly, my opponent says, " Pointing out that just magicking god into the picture is unacceptable because you could just as easily assume the universe exists." That's not what I'm saying. God created "the picture." But the universe itself was indeed created by Him. Time was created by Him. He didn't have to be created—He is the Creator.

The origin of "the point" where the universe came from is still under question. The Big Bang, evolution, etc. are still all theories. God, however, is not a theory. Nevertheless, my opponent brings up, "The theory of evolution is a theory because it is a model to understand the world. It explains a large set of data with a robust set of facts which has been repeatedly tested over 150 years and always has proved triumphant." According to Merriam Webster's dictionary, a theory is: an unproved assumption. How can evolution be "proved triumphant" if it is still "an unproved assumption"?

In many ways, my opponent has tried to get off track of the debate. So now, I ask my opponent to bring up evidence that God doesn't exist. His intention was to tear down my arguments, and for the last round, I would like to see some evidence (that is not theoretical) that God doesn't exist.

In these past few rounds, I have given evidence after evidence, and yet my opponent continues to make assertions without proof. He also disclaims any evidence I have given, despite any authenticity. My opponent says "No, no, no" to all of my arguments, but he DOES NOT provide ANY evidence to back up his statements! They are illogical and absurd assumptions with NO PROOF. If you look at everything my opponent claims, he has no reason to back anything up except his own ideas. Yet, I have provided evidence after evidence to support my reasoning, and I've even included a personal story, which cannot be denied.

Conclusively, his PBS video assumed there was a God involved with Israel, and if the video he provided says there is a God, then it would mean my opponent believes in a God. Therefore, I respectfully ask for a vote on the affirmative. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Tatarize

Con

If I were stubborn enough or cared very little I could stedfast deny God slapping me around like a scene from Chinatown. However at this point I'd settle for even moderately bad evidence rather than completely bad evidence.

The fact that the comics are comics makes them false? The adventures of Joe Messiah are absolutely true though because you say so. You can't simply claim the Bible is historical, when its not, and suppose that that meets your burden of proof, because it doesn't.

The entire point behind bringing up comic books was to point out that there's some true events in works of fictions so pointing out a but that is true, doesn't render the entire text nonfiction. It could also be the case that the Bible were largely historical but all the parts about God are made-up. To this point concerning Egyptian writings my opponent said, "This is a desperate assumption made by my opponent. I was not talking about their gods, I was talking about the historical content of it." She admits there could be historical content while the parts about the gods are completely false.

Why talk about any supposed history within the context of the Bible? If you can have one without the other then clearly any history within the Bible could be unrelated to the truth of the gods depicted. This alone suffices to establish all the supposed "evidence" as moot, and being also false is simply icing on the cake.

--

If I were to suggest that comic books are historical documents. That the events depicted are real events and all the silence in other non-comic ways of understanding are simply an odd fluke, how could you possibly tell? That's exactly the situation we have with the Bible. The Bible says one thing happened and the rest of history makes a compelling case that it absolutely didn't but a culture existed which would have happily written the Bible for a number of reasons. We have the texts, with fictional bits and stuff that works in context, but most of the actual events depicted are completely wrong. If we were in the future who could tell the difference between Zeus, Jesus, or Spiderman?

--

I'm not denying your testimony. I am denying that testimony is evidence at all and that your testimony in particular was not amazing at all. I didn't see anything even remotely amazing in the story. You fell down and suffered a scalp bleed (I've had those they look wicked) and then people helped you. I'm not denying your experience I am denying that it is undeniable evidence that God exists, or even good evidence, or evidence at all.

--

>>"Has my opponent had any experiences with evolution? Of course not."

Actually, I've had a significant number of experiences with evolution. I am a computer scientist and have significant interest in genetic algorithms. In fact, if you look at my current picture, you'll quickly discover that it's not actually a picture at all but a group of 200 semitransparent polygons that took about three days to evolve on my computer via a genetic algorithm which simply made random changes, tested those changes and kept the beneficial results. From the Walkers, Avida, and many other and actually economically viable implementations of genetic algorithms and genetic programing it is pretty easy to watch it in action.

--

The "evidence" you've provided for King David are supposed relics coming from anywhere in the 10th century BCE. The relics have always proven to be much later than that, usually 8th and 7th century after the initial claims of dating and even if you found something, it wouldn't prove the Bible correct on the matter. The existence of a 10th century Israel wouldn't prove the Bible correct on the issue of God.

--

>>This is like saying: the Egyptians wrote hieroglyphs about their lives, but they were all just stories that "didn't actually happen by taking the works of the surrounding culture."

Actually this is exactly what they are too. You need to read the parts and look at other records and kind of skip the part where the Pharaoh is a god incarnate, and does this or that fantastic deed. However, they are largely different bits and need to be put in the culture context and the events need to be taken with many grains of salt.

--

>>Remember: the Bible is a historical record, not a bunch of made-up stories bunched into a book."

No. It isn't. That's the point.

--

>>Please give me an example for this, and when you try, you'll find your claim is not true.

The conquest depicted in Judges. We can find most the ruins and when we date them and take a look, several were destroyed before the supposed conquest and others were destroyed by local populations much later. We find that there wasn't a great conquest but a social movement.

--

>>But the universe itself was indeed created by Him. Time was created by Him. He didn't have to be created—He is the Creator.

Why not say the universe was created by the universe. Time is part of the universe. -- It's a bit easier and actually has a significant amount of data to backup the claims. And doesn't ignore and presuppose a God popping out of nothing.

--

>>The Big Bang, evolution, etc. are still all theories. God, however, is not a theory.

Gravity is a theory too. You don't seem to understand what is meant by theory. And, yes, God is not a theory. God is a myth. God doesn't explain anything and isn't a model for understanding the the world. Theories don't suddenly become something else when we get a lot of evidence for them. We can look into a microscope and there's still cell theory, even though we can see cells.

"Tested over 150 years and always has proved triumphant." - It has always been right each time it has be put to the test. You can only disprove a theory, you can't prove it. The best thing we can do is fail constantly to disprove a theory with such significant rigor as to be confident that we probably won't disprove.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

--

I don't actually have any burden here. I am contending that there is no good evidence that God exists. Evidence that God doesn't exist is firstly, asking to prove a negative, and secondly completely moot to the debate.

--

The video referred to God just as a PBS video on Roman gods would refer to the gods.

--

My opponent hasn't given anything which could even rise to the point of being good evidence much less undeniable evidence. I have, careful observers will note, done a really good job at pointing out the flaws in my opponents arguments and claims. I have referred to specific rebukes of the claims. I have pointed to scholarly works. I have tried to use repeated analogies. The part of all of this is most of my opponents "evidence" were claims for some historicity of the Bible. I could simply concede all those arguments. Even if some parts of the Bible are historical (as my opponent notes), it has no bearing on the mythology and gods also contained within the text. Beyond being really really bad evidence, it's all moot!

My opponent hasn't shown any undeniable evidence that God exists. We haven't even seen any good evidence. She once fell down on her bike. There's this rock formation that looks somewhat boat-like in some mountains way away from where Noah's Ark was said to have landed. There's a reference to somebody on some stone long after they were supposed to have lived. Some nut job claims he found something that looked like a wagon wheel and only Bible stories produce debris. There's claims of 10th century Israel finds which slowly creep forward in time to centuries later without all the press coverage. And, comic books aren't real unlike the Bible and the Bible is real which proves God. -- If you think any of this is even mediocre go ahead and vote for whomever. But, seriously, be honest with yourself and vote Con.
ozziegirl

Pro

Before I begin this last debate, I would like to thank my opponent for a good debate.

First, my opponent made the odd connection between a comic book and the Bible. He said, "The adventures of Joe Messiah are absolutely true though because you say so. You can't simply claim the Bible is historical, when its not, and suppose that that meets your burden of proof, because it doesn't." It isn't just me that says it. My first constructive listed several Biblical scholars who have verified the Bible's accuracy and reliability.

Actually, Lee Strobel, a former atheist like yourself, thought the Bible to be reliable and accurate. (http://www.leestrobel.com...) Also, you brought up the PBS video. You DO realize that PBS uses the Bible as a historical reference, right? Your own source considers the Bible to be reliable.

Secondly, my opponent mentioned his experience with his picture evolving on a computer. I would like to thank my opponent for helping my point. Allow me to go back my first analogy: the computer is created by a person. Although the computer itself may have been random, a creator was behind the program he used to make his picture, after all :)

My opponent says, "The existence of a 10th century Israel wouldn't prove the Bible correct on the issue of God." No, but that's not all I was proving. I've given you evidence of David's existence throughout various parts of this debate. You can deny the name "King David" written on ancient artifacts, but that doesn't change the fact that his name is on them and he truly did exist.

Thirdly, my opponent brings up, "God doesn't explain anything and isn't a model for understanding the the world." God explains more than evolution does. There are still questions with the Big Bang theory and Evolution, but the undeniable existence of a God explains everything.

I find it humorous that my opponent claimed my evidence to be foolish, yet he provided no evidence to back up any of his statements. I would like to list all of the assertions my opponent brought up without any evidence to back them up:
1)The Bible is not reliable
2)The Bible depicts a vast number of events which did not actually occur
3)The translations of the Bible changed over time
4)There is no evidence that King David or King Solomon existed
5)Further claims about Biblical records are found to be false
6)The "social movement" taken out of context from the story of Judges

I asked one simple thing from my opponent: to give me some evidence that God doesn't exist. However, he failed to do so. If my opponent can't even take the time to give me a simple answer or a site (because he so blatantly believes God doesn't exist) then he should have been able to give me a few sentences explaining why He doesn't. If my opponent can't even defend his own claims, then there is no doubt I have won this debate.

My opponent can bash the evidence I gave, but at least I gave some. I gave scholar names, article links, etc. while my opponent gave a site and a couple of videos. I ask that you vote, not on what you believe, but who provided the most evidence in this debate. I have won on not only evidence, but on logic and arguments throughout this debate.

Conclusively, my opponent can insult me however he chooses, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm right. Check my evidence—look at my sources! Then I would ask you to look at the evidence (or lack thereof) that my opponent provided. And because I have given undeniable evidence of God's existence, I respectfully urge an affirmative on your ballot. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Smithy912 1 month ago
Smithy912
ozziegirl has no idea what she is talking about a 10 year old boy (me) can counter nearly every argument that you had but forward firstly we have more evidence in the big bang theory then any other theory first of all Edwin Hubble discovered that all the planets and all the solar system where moving away from each other and the only thing that can move planets was a enital force that pushed them in this direction (like a explosion) which is more probable then just suddenly god made the earth appeared in seven days out of nowhere secondly scientist have discovered a particle that came from nothing and turned into something which could be the starting point of creating the big bang.You also said that the bibal was one of the most trust worthy books Wrong for more than a thousand years the bible was just a story and was not written on paper for a long time.It is difficult to keep a story the same but for more than a 1000 years before writing it on paper...not very reliable.you should really learn what you are talking about if a 10 year old can top you.
Posted by Galiban 5 years ago
Galiban
""By what conceivable metric could the laws of physics change randomly every second. Do you honestly think that gravity would flip around and go every which direction?""

If atheism is true and All things came from nothing with no potentiality of something in that non being, then by logic you must allow for anything can come into being becuase the potentiality is not needed. Something comes from nothing (non being) according to atheism. It is completely illogical. It is why Every Christian knows that God created us. We do not rely on the Bible told us so. The Bible is the revealed will of God. Life is the revelation that He exists.
Posted by Galiban 5 years ago
Galiban
You misunderstood both points. Please reread. Are you a math major of any sort? Are you familiar with quantum mechanics, if not I will dumb down the references.

Soul is Life. It is the Hebrew word Nephesh. It is life. Everyone has life. As you term soul (I see your definition now) is consciousness. Its a distinction. An animal is not conscious. We have that because we are made in the image of God. I realize Soul (to you and others) now means that consciousness. The brain allows our consciousness to interact with our body. It is functional to allow us to control our body. The consciousness directs the will of the person. The brain is the interaction of the two. Our soul will be removed and attached to a new body when we die. Our consciousness needs a body.

I think you need to study much on Christian Theology. You are not undestanding my usage. Soul = Consciousness. Despite all of my instructions to have you study the soul and what it is you still have not. It is causing you not to grasp what God has revealed to His creation :)
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
By what conceivable metric could the laws of physics change randomly every second. Do you honestly think that gravity would flip around and go every which direction? They would also need to all shift at the macro scale if they just did random things in fairly non-random ways it would still wind up with a very consistent law such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Your definition of soul is rather odd. Do you think viruses are alive when they are infecting cells? What would the difference between a soulless living organisms and a unsoulled organism. If a soul provides life, then what's with all these circulatory systems and limbic systems etc? Shouldn't they be unneeded?
Posted by Galiban 5 years ago
Galiban
One other note, why have our laws of physics not randomly changed every second? If there is not a Guided order, there is nothing to stop it from becoming random. Nothing Holds it together. However, we have God's Word that states He holds it together and will continue to until He destroys it.

As to the soul, What makes you think the soul functions that way? The soul is the stuff of life. You gain life at first breath. We are taught that by our Creator. He states you gain soul life at first breath. We gain a spirit when we become eternal, that is when we accept God's truth. We are spiritually dead until then.

We have physical life
Soul Life
Spiritual Life

You have no spirit currently. You do not get one until God redeems you. Until then your "stuck in the muck".

That Spirit allows you to see, hear and know God. God has a Law or rule that governs this earth. Redemption gains you a spirit.

Your Soul is the source of Life. The soul is your life. You live becuase you have a soul. If you have just a thinking Mind then your toast. That is just silly and kind of depressing.

God is provable. He states when you pursue Him with all your heart mind and soul you find Him. I did just that. I became born again and found him. I now see hear and talk with Him. You can verify this. Do as He states. Simple- no more doubts.

The key is setting aside these preconceptions. You believe the brain is ineffecient therefore God probably does not exist because God would conceptually do a better job of making a brain so you now believe He does not exist.

It is entirely predicated upon presuppositions and no knowledge. If God told you the reason for the brains being the way they are then would that solve it for you? No, becuase you have based all of the information Upon God not existing.

Try it. Pursue Him with all your heart Mind soul and strength. Think you won't find Him? I promise you will.
Posted by Galiban 5 years ago
Galiban
""You could very much have a divine hiding God who makes it look as if he doesn't by giving man a brain that does the same as a soul but very inefficently""

Why is this simple concept that is not sinking in? It is not ineffecient. You only believe it is ineffecient. It is perfectly suited for what God intended.

""Its a fact, which when considered, should give weight to atheism.""
It is in no way a fact. You belief is predicating the supposed truth of this fact. Nothing more.

""Even unguided processes tend toward order.""
This is a simple concept as well. It has order becuase it is NOT unguided. You just believe it is because you do not understand or know God.

"" I daresay a lot of the misapprehension is due to a poor understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However the sheer unguided forces like gravity can create solarsystems and spherical planets any number of very orderly structuring.""

Again the stellar forces are not unguided.

Also Einstein to his deathbed was attempting to find that unifying principle to unite the governance of the weak and strong forces, gravity and electromagnetism. He firmly believed the quantum level was not chaotic despite quantum mechanics utilizing random S in its equations. The "Big" could not be so stable when the little that makes it up is completly random. Foolishness. He knew God did not create a chaotic universe.

Here is the principle. If there was no potentiality for existence why do we exist? Something cannot come from nothing. We all come from God. The pattern of the GUIDED universe comes from God.

We know it is not chaotic. Follow this principle:
If just random something comes from nothing, why do we not have something popping into existence every second? You are fairly confident that there is not, at this moment, a cat popping into existence in your second floor bathroom yelling he needs TP. Why are you so confident "Butch" is not yelling for your right now? How about in 4.5 Billion years?
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
The underlying argument is that because brains seem pointless of theism is true but are a requirement for atheism establishes brains as evidence for atheism. This isn't intended as an absolute proof. You could very much have a divine hiding God who makes it look as if he doesn't by giving man a brain that does the same as a soul but very inefficently. It doesn't negate the observation of evidence which is far different than a conclusive argument or a requirement to accept that atheism is true. Its a fact, which when considered, should give weight to atheism.

I don't believe purely in chance. I don't think everything is divinely purposed either. I think many people have been supposing, wrongly, against the idea of cosmos. Even unguided processes tend toward order. I daresay a lot of the misapprehension is due to a poor understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However the sheer unguided forces like gravity can create solarsystems and spherical planets any number of very orderly structuring.

Finally, there's no super study to conduct on the soul. There is only the theist suppositions about the soul which serve to largely duplicate the function of the brain. In reality, it's just the brain and the soul is invented poppycock of primitive people who couldn't study brains. It is only after this study do we ascribe the soul duplicate functionality because what we do is what brains do.

That said, I suggest you study dragon lore.
Posted by Galiban 5 years ago
Galiban
""It doesn't make any conclusive answers but it does strongly suggest that brains are certainly evidence for atheism.""

That is only true if you ignore purpose. You are relying on a presupposition. We have already seen the facts for the Big head from this gentleman was innaccurate. Could the rationale for the non-purpose be as well?

The key concept that is a difference in atheism and theism is purpose. You believe purely in chance. That is a Pagan concept from Far eastern culture for thousands of years and western philosophy adopted. We Christians have a concept that everything is derived from purpose.

Claiming "I do not see a purpose thus evidence for atheism" is a complete fallacy. Christians point to the fact because you do not know the purpose of our creater you cannot claim He does not exist. It is not positive evidence, it is lack of knowledge.

The animals have thoughts and minds as well. The soul is completely different from what you are proposing. It is far to in depth a study, to relay here. I would recommend you find out what God claims the soul is or you will continue to look unknowledgable.
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
Yeah, but why have the brains at all. Why not just be soul based and drop the fragile, weak, power hungry, easily damaged brain all together. It's apparently superfluous and a only serves to hinder us. The only reason we should actually have a brain is if the soul doesn't exist, and look at this... we have a brain.

It doesn't make any conclusive answers but it does strongly suggest that brains are certainly evidence for atheism.
Posted by Galiban 5 years ago
Galiban
""Good to know that bleeding, hemorrhage, infections, and obstructed labor have nothing to do with giant heads.""

Your kidding right?
Do you know anything about Labor? I have 4 children and have experienced it on the catching end. That is a ludicrous proposition backed by a complete lack of knowledge.

""If you can have a mind with just a soul, as one would assume. Then brains are pointless powerhogs without any purpose for being.""

Assumptions are the bane of atheism. This is a foolish notion based upon not knowing what a soul is or how it operates. What was unclear in my previous two posts?

Knowledge + Reason = Understanding. You have too little information and too many assumptions resulting in scary assertions.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 11 through 13 records.
Vote Placed by zach12 5 years ago
zach12
TatarizeozziegirlTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Galiban 5 years ago
Galiban
TatarizeozziegirlTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by ozziegirl 5 years ago
ozziegirl
TatarizeozziegirlTied
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:07