The Instigator
Moelogy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
wmickas
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

atheism (pro) vs Christianity (con)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 635 times Debate No: 103158
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Moelogy

Pro

1 - Acceptance Pro arguments
2 - arguement and rebuttals.
3 - arguements and rebuttals.
4 - solely for rebuttals (no new arguements)

BOP - shared.

Definition

Christianity - the christian religion predominately believing in the trinitarian God of the bible.

False - Its claims contradict truth, facts and reasoning
wmickas

Con

I like to thank my opponent for the chance to debate this topic. I would like to start off by responding to my opponent's assertion that Christianity's claims contradict truth and reasoning. First there has not been a definition of truth given yet in this opening statement which would determine how I would handle the rest of this debate. Second I would claim that the Christian worldview would give a foundation for truth facts and reasoning where atheism doesn't. I will expand on this throughout the rest of this debate. My opponent has yet to demonstrate his claim or give examples but merely gives an assertion. I will end this opening statement in hopes that this will be a debate of substance instead of the debates that I am used to on social media with atheists
Debate Round No. 1
Moelogy

Pro

- Christianity's claims does not stand up to reality and science

Religion does not stand up to scientific facts like a round earth, old universe, evolution, big bang, heliocentrism and the fact that no global flood probably occurred.

Christian claim: God created the universe in 6 days and the Earth comes / was created before the rest of the universe. - Genesis 1

Big bang: Earth and universe have a 10 billion years difference - Earth coming later not before.

The evidence for the big bang is so rife and varies from the CMBR which is literally the leftover energy and heat from the big bang explosion observed everywhere in the universe to the expansion and redshift of galaxies, which means that working back in time, the universe was confined to a small point to Big Bang Nucleosynthesis to dark energy. [1] Some have even claimed to see the rapid expansion by looking at light that was old enough. [2]

Christian claim: God created humans in one days in heaven from mud and ribs before all animals so impossible to evolve if you came before animals - Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:18-22

Evolution :

- Transitional fossils

Transitional fossils prove that species evolved from other species overtime. The fossil record will often show a fine and gradual transition from one species into another that empirically demonstrates that some species evolved from others over time

Fish to tetrapods

-Tiktaalik [3] two hind legs where red box is. red box over less clear leg.

- Ichthyostega [4] looks like human legs [5]

- Pederpes [6] not as obvious but the legs are off the body in lower end of the spine

Reptiles to birds

- archaeopteryx [7]
- Confuciusornis [8]

Primate to humans

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

Explanation of image in comments

- Pseudogenes

Pseudogenes like w3nta [9] are in the human dna and they give us tails like primates but they are deactivated due to a mutation despite being in our own dna which suggests humans had tails at one point in the past and other primate characteristics in the past. Same with hHaA [10] that gives us hair all over our bodies just like primates but it is deactivated by a mutation and is not used despite being in our dna which reveals that we once in the past did have this trait.

- Vestigial Features

They are leftover structures and organs from other species that have no function and are sometimes harmful like:

- Wisdom teeth in humans [11] - leftover from primates with big jaws and big mouths.

- coccyx in humans [12] - evolved from apes

- pelvic bones in snakes [13] - leftover from lizards

- hind legs in whales [14] - leftover from mammals

- Ostrich wings

- atavisms

atavisms prove evolution and they are when pseudogenes get activated, they reveal traits we had in the past like fur all over, tails and other primate characteristics.

Look at four-year-old Jiaxue from china

http://science.howstuffworks.com......

Indian boy was born with atavisms and he had a tail like primates and he could not walk in an upright posture like primates.

https://www.google.ca......

Christain claim: Universe is 6,000 to 10,000 based on Genesis 1, genealogies in Genesis 4, 5, 11 and the well known fact that Jesus existed 2,017 years ago. and also using the average expectancy of the generations between Jesus and abraham in Mathew chapter 1. Some of the people between abraham and Jesus have had their ages stated in the bible.

James Ussher claimed the Earth came into being in 4004 B.C. based on genealogies of the bible and other historical texts. [15]

Old universe :

Each year, the tree grows new rings inside its trunk. If we were to cut the trunk and count the number of growth or annual rings inside, we could get the age of the tree. Sometimes you could take a thin small half-circle from the trunk to date the tree without damaging the tree or killing it.

Old Tjikko

Discovered by scientists in Sweden in 2004, Old Tjikko is 9,500 years old. A Norwegian Spruce that stands in Fulufj"llets National Park in Sweden, it is thought to have sprouted at some point during the ice age. While at only 13 feet tall it might not look like much, its underground root system is somewhat more impressive, having been continuously expanding for almost 10,000 years. [16][17]

How could the earth have been created recently when a single tree is that old?

King Clone
A ring of creosote bushes that are estimated to be 11,700 years old [18]

Radioactive decay and Radiometric dating

Multiple radioactive decay methods of multiple rocks have given an age of a few billion years like the acasta Gneiss in Canada which is 4 billion years old [19], zircon crystals in australia which is 4.4 billion years old [20] or the cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years [21] by radioactive decay methods of surrounding rocks.

Christain claim:

Job 28:24, Psalms 19:4-6, Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, Psalms 136:6, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 11:12, Job 38:13

Here is the flat earth of Christianity. [22]

round earth:

- pictures [23]

- lunar eclipse [24]

-ships [25]

-seeing farther from higher [26]

- Eratosthenes [27]

- The sun as a spotlight [28]

- Christianity's claims does not stand up to Christianity's claims

Can God see people?

No man can see God and live - Exodus 33:20

Whoever sees God has his life preserved - Genesis 32:30 (exact opposite of Exodus 33:20)

Moses saw and spoke to God face to face like friends do - Exodus 33:11

Genesis 12 : 7 - Abraham saw God

Leaders of Israel saw, ate and drank with God - Exodus 24:11

Jacob saw God and lived - Genesis 32:30

Solomon saw God TWICE - 1 Kings 11:9.

No man has seen God -1 John 4:12

No man has ever seen God - John 1:18

How is this possible without a contradiction?

Hilarious video [29]

- Incoherence of the concept of God

In Christianity, God makes himself subject to time when he says things like "one day unto you is like a thousand years unto man" (Bible 2 peter 3:8) How can God exist with time? There are three options, God is timeless, God lives in a reality with infinite time, God lives in a reality with finite time. If God is timeless, he can not exist ... not even for one second. Without time, God can not exist because there is literally no time for him. He can not exist not even for one second due to lack of time and lack of seconds. Without time, God is frozen and can not change anything nor create anything because without time, there is no change and no creation. Because changing and creating are processes, they reuire time by definition of a process.

http://faculty.uca.edu...

If God exists in a reality with finite time, he needs a cause to account for the beginning of his existence in the finite past. If God started to exist in the finite, what caused his start? What is God's cause that brought him into being?

If God exists in a reality with infinite time, he is stuck in an INFINITE past sequence of events meaning he can not create anything due to being stuck in an infinite regress. If he wants to get to creation, it would be impossible, since he would have to undergo an INFINITE number of events to get to the action of creation (infinite regress).

and no God can not break Logic because if God broke the laws of logic (which are necessary and not contingent) then God could be both God and not God (law of identity) or God could be both God and Satan at the same time (law of contradiction) or God could be both impotent and omnipotent, which would break his nature.
and we already established that God is subject to time just like humans from the holy books.

You cant exist outside of time. Time is a measurement of change. Without time, god can not change or do any change meaning he is frozen. He cant cause any change and can not create anything without time.

http://faculty.uca.edu...

References in comments.
wmickas

Con

My opponent starts off by claiming that the Christians claim that the universe was created in six literal 24 hour days. Obviously this is proven to be false by the next statement he makes about the big bang. Let me give you give you a little history lesson on the big bang theory. The big bang was first theorized by Georges Lamaitre who was ironically a Catholic preist around 1927 proposed what became known as the Big Bang Theory. The predominate theory at the time was what was called the steady state universe theory which means that the universe eternally existed with no beginning and no end. Even Einstein fudged his equations to allow for an eternal universe. Genesis 1:1 says that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth." thousands of years before the big bang theory was first theorized. Second the ministry Reasons to Believe and BioLogos believe that we can reconcile the modern scientific theories with Christian faith. I am currently siding with the yon This debate is not about Young Earth Creation vs Evolution, so I won't respond to his proofs for evolution but if he wants to debate YEC vs evolution I will be able to provide my answer to most of them. I will spend most of my time responding to his accusations against Christianity itself. He claims that the Bible teaches a flat earth. I assert the Bible is not making a scientific statement that the earth is flat, but the Bible is speaking from the observer's point of view. He quoted all kinds of verses saying that there is a contradiction in the Bible where it talks about nobody can see God and people actually saw God. First scholars like Allen Segal and Wesley Muhammad interestingly show from Jewish and Christian tradition and scripture that there seems to be a binatarian or trinitarian nature to God. In the coming responses I can talk more about this if my opponent wishes. My oppenent brings up an interesting verse 2 Peter 3:8 which says that to God one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is one day. Isaiah 55:8-9 sums this up beautifully which means that we cannot understand a triomni God fully. But lets do something crazy lets apply this type of argumentation to my opponent's worldview. When I ask questions about the origin of the universe or life itself. Most atheists would tell me that science would figure it out one day. This is puts some optimism in the atheists mind. When atheists ask trivial questions about the nature of God and we respond with the same type of answer, Christianity become subject to ridicule. Lets apply even scales to our argumentation.
Debate Round No. 2
Moelogy

Pro

My opponent does not provide any evidence for his standpoint so it is an obvious concession for his view since he does not meet his BOP.

R1) Big bang :

"My opponent starts off by claiming that the Christians claim that the universe was created in six literal 24 hour days. Obviously this is proven to be false by the next statement he makes about the big bang. Let me give you give you a little history lesson on the big bang theory. "

Well yeah the bible does contradict the big bang. And yes God does compare the creation week to our week. Read Exodus 20:8-11. In this verse God literally compares the sabbath of his creation week to the sabbath of our human week meaning they are of the same length and they both have days. The word used in Genesis 1 is "yom" which means day and means day in every other instance of the bible. The days of creation are even defined by night and day just like normal literal days.

"Second the ministry Reasons to Believe and BioLogos believe that we can reconcile the modern scientific theories with Christian faith. "

Who cares what they believe?

R2 : Religion and scientific theories

"I am currently siding with the yon This debate is not about Young Earth Creation vs Evolution, so I won't respond to his proofs for evolution but if he wants to debate YEC vs evolution I will be able to provide my answer to most of them."

This debate is about whether christianity is the truth and christianity makes claims against facts and against empirical evidence for example, it says the earth is flat but pictures say otherwise. Christianity made itself involved in this debate by making such claims and this debate is to debunk the claims of the bible and prove christianity is wrong.

R3) Flat earth

"He claims that the Bible teaches a flat earth. I assert the Bible is not making a scientific statement that the earth is flat, but the Bible is speaking from the observer's point of view."

False. The bible on multiple occasions says that God held the edges of the earth so even from the persepctive of God the Earth is flat. (Job 38:13, Job 28:24, psalm 19:4-6). It even says that Jesus could see ALL the kingdoms and the empires of Earth from very veyr high mountain --- that is impossible on a sphere. Even in the verses i provided it makes no mention of perspective and merely states that Earth has edges or that you can reach the ends of the Earth before falling off. Even if perspective shows you an edge to the earth, that means the Earth is flat.

R4 ) Contradictions

"He quoted all kinds of verses saying that there is a contradiction in the Bible where it talks about nobody can see God and people actually saw God. First scholars like Allen Segal and Wesley Muhammad interestingly show from Jewish and Christian tradition and scripture that there seems to be a binatarian or trinitarian nature to God. In the coming responses I can talk more about this if my opponent wishes. "

Red herring fallacy. How does this answer the fact that there are contradictions?

R5) Time trilemma

"2 Peter 3:8 which says that to God one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is one day. Isaiah 55:8-9 sums this up beautifully which means that we cannot understand a triomni God fully. "

How does this answer the time trilemma? I already told you God can not break logic because then he can be both God and not God (law of identity) or he can be both God and Satan (Law of non-contradiciton) or he can be both omnipotent and impotent.

R6) What we do not know

"When I ask questions about the origin of the universe or life itself. Most atheists would tell me that science would figure it out one day. This is puts some optimism in the atheists mind. When atheists ask trivial questions about the nature of God and we respond with the same type of answer"

Life started on Earth by abiogenesis.

Life or the first cell evolved and became the first prokaryotic cell. Scientists discovered that it is possible for simple life to evolve from simple abiotic chemicals. The law of biogenesis, disproved spontaneous generation, states that it is impossible for complex multicellular could arise all of sudden from non-living objects like complex from meat or multicellular complex rats to evolve from wheat [1]. What scientists discovered is that simple prokaryotic life could evolve from simple inorganic chemicals since this is not complex multicellular organisms coming from nothing, unicellular abiogenesis does not contradict the law of biogenesis. Here is how. Science discovered that if lightning (electricity) striked the early mixture of gases in the early atmosphere (methane, hydrogen, ammonia and water vapor), it is possible for the monomers of life like amino acids to evolve from those gases, this experiment is called miller-urey experiment [2] [3] [4]. Using different variations of the same experiment, simple nucleic acids can be formed [2] [3]. Those monomers however, need to form long chains (polymers) to become macromolecules. Fox discovered the pouring those monomers on any source of heat like thermal sea vents, hot rock or hot clay or just exposure to intense heat generally could form polymers out of those monomers. He poured the monomers over hot rock and sand in his experiment caused dehydration synthesis and the creation of macromolecules like proteins [2] [5]. Now that the life is in macromolecules it needs to be packaged which Oparin and Haldane proved that those macromolecules could interact in cell with a cell membrane of fats and liposomes and this would be the first cell (protobiont) and it would gain energy by fermentation of surrounding organic chemicals [ 6 ]. Now that we have the first cell, the nucleic acids become even longer chains of nucleotides using the proteins formed earlier. The proteins assembled the nucleic acids into long chains which formed RNA. The RNA carried out the instructions of the cell and became the command center in the nucleiod region. This is the first prokaryotic cell. Scientists also found out that RNA could act as enzymes exactly like proteins and carry mamy chemical functions, those RNA enzymes have the same capabilities as protein enzymes and they are called ribozymes [7]. The proteins and ribozymes also allowed for a very important task which is the replication of RNA and mitosis. Now the cell could duplicate and divide creating multiple cells and form colonies which had specialized cells and turned into the first simple organism [8]. An important thing to note is also endosymbiosis. Endosymbiosis allowed the cells to move from being prokaryotic to eukaryotic. The cells began to encompass other life and form mutualistic symbiosis. Endosymbiosis is responsible for creating the illusion of the complexity of the first cell. The first cell became very complex and involving multiple functions because of endosymbiosis. Endosymbiosis simply states that the prokaryotic cell evolved and became eukaryotic and complex by engulfing other life. Two proofs of endosybiosis is the mitochondria and the chloroplasts. Endosymbiosis allowed the cell to engulf aerobic life which became the mitochondria later and allowed the cell to engulf cyanobacteria which became chloroplasts later. Two evidences for this is that the mitochondria and chloroplasts now literally have their own circular DNA different from the chromosomes which is characteristic of early prokaryotic life and that the mitochondria has a double membrane. One is membrane is its own and the other was given by the cell during engulfing [9]. The symbiosis was obvious, the aerobic life which became mitochondria later gave the cell energy in the form of ATP and the cell gave protection organic chemicals required. Returning to the original point is that mitosis allowed the cell to duplicate and divide using proteins. This is how life evolved.

You did not meet your burden of proof and I rebutted all of your shaky rebuttals.

References in comments.
wmickas

Con

First, I agree that the Bible supports more of the young earth interpretation. But if you are going to talk about what the Christian claim, then you would have to look at Christianity as a whole and see what they believe on this topic. There are four interpretations of the first chapter of Genesis which are "day-age theory", "gap theory" ,evolutionary creationism the six literal 24 hour day theory. I will define each for you.
Day-age theory: the days of Genesis could be a long period of time and does not necessarily have to be six literal 24-hour day. (http://www.reasons.org... )
Gap theory: There seems to be a gap of billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 "Jeremiah 4:23-27 ; Isaiah 24:1 ; 45:18 clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting imitations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels.See Ezekiel 28:12-15 ; Isaiah 14:9-14 which certainly go beyond the kings of Tyre and Babylon."- Scofield reference Bible.
The Theistic evolutionary model: A good friend of mine who also debated Kent Hovind who is a prominent Young Earth Creationist has a model how Genesis can fit with the evolutionary model https://drive.google.com...

I want to remind my opponent and the audience that this debate is Christianity vs atheism and not my opponent's assessment of Christianity vs atheism

I have a question, Did the writers of the Bible have access to the technology that we have today? Was God trying to communicate to those people in a way that they could understand?

When I was explaining these two scholars that showed that there is a binatarian or trinitarian nature. I am explaining why that there are theophanies and Christophanies in the Bible that we see the son and not the father.

When I was asked to explain the time dilemma I said that I don't know how to explain it. The study of the different theories of time is interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...

He talks about the theory of abiogenesis. He cites the Miller and Urey experiment. Here's some of the problems. They made 85% tar, 13% carboxylic acid, (both of these are toxic for life) 2% amino acids half the amino acids are left handed and half are right handed. The smallest proteins have 7-100 amino acids in precise order all left handed. RNA and DNA nucleotides are all right handed. They did not come even close to producing life in the laboratory. All we have are hypotheses on how life might have started but no clear evidences on how life started.

Take away: he asked a lot of questions about examining Christianity, but if Christianity was proven false, then that would not mean that Atheism is rational.
Lets ask some questions to my atheist friends:
How do you account for the laws of logic in your worldview?
How do you account for the uniformity of nature in your worldview?
How do you account for your senses and reasoning in your worldview?
How do you account for morality in your worldview?
I will now allow my opponent to respond to these questions and respond to rebuttles
Debate Round No. 3
Moelogy

Pro

My opponent does not provide any evidence for his standpoint so it is an obvious concession for his view since he does not meet his BOP.

R1) age of the universe

"First, I agree that the Bible supports more of the young earth interpretation. But if you are going to talk about what the Christian claim, then you would have to look at Christianity as a whole and see what they believe on this topic."

I could not care less what christians believe. I care more about what the your religious texts and claims say and when they contradict the big bang by saying the universe is young counting the genealogies from adam to Jesus to Now and also using the time from the creation of the universe (which is 6 days because it is set by day and night and morning and evening just like normal days, the word used is "yom" which means literal day and God even compares the length of his week to the length of our week in exodus 20: 8-11) Then you arrive a the conclusion that the universe is 6 days apart from adam and adam is 6,000 years older than jesus using genealogies of the bible in Genesis 4,5,11 and matthew 1 and the common fact that Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. at most the universe is twelve thousand years using all loopholes and interpretations like 2 Peter 3:8, ". . . one day is with the Lord as a thousand years . . ..". These numbers are obviously ridicolous since radioactive decay gives an age of 4.5 billion years to some rocks and some trees are 80,000 using carbon dating or growth rings. So Christianity makes false claims. Plus even if days meant millions of years what is the point of calling it day one or day two or day 4?

R2) Nature of this debate

"I want to remind my opponent and the audience that this debate is Christianity vs atheism and not my opponent's assessment of Christianity vs atheism"

Well I am showing you facts (like the round earth) using empirical evidence (like pictures), the fact that Christianity makes false claims about reality and some things that we observe means Christianity is false because it contradicts facts meaning Christianity's reliability is undermined and you should not believe any other claims that it makes.

R3) Time trilemma

"When I was asked to explain the time dilemma I said that I don't know how to explain it. The study of the different theories of time is interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org...... https://en.wikipedia.org...;

How does this disprove the time trilemma? Time's existence is objective and we know this from phenomenon like time dilation. If time's existence is objective (not experience), that is all we need for the time trilemma to stand.

R4) abiogenesis

"He talks about the theory of abiogenesis. He cites the Miller and Urey experiment. Here's some of the problems. They made 85% tar, 13% carboxylic acid, (both of these are toxic for life) 2% amino acids half the amino acids are left handed and half are right handed."

Do not know where Pro got those numbers from. Would like to see some evidence or a source. This is a formal debate and you should not be making claims without evidence. If there was tar in the results, you do realize that tar is a thick, viscous black fluid and no black fluids were observed in the results. Carboxylic acids are actually organic molecules evident in their own name. If organic molecules were present in the results, that means life came from non-life

Here are the real results of the miller-urey experiment :

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk...

R5) questions

"How do you account for the laws of logic in your worldview?"

They are neccessary laws and abstract laws. Neccessary things by definition have no cause and no explanation. That is like saying why does the number 7 exist? or why does the color blue smell so delicious? It is an incoherent question.

(https://www.jstor.org...) (https://www.researchgate.net...)

"How do you account for the uniformity of nature in your worldview?"

Laws of physics.

"How do you account for your senses and reasoning in your worldview?"

My brain has chemistry of hormones and forms pathways among neurons that allow me to think and have consciousness and have perceptions of my surroundings. We know it is parts of the brain that does this and not a guy in a 2000-year-old book because babies who do not have those parts of the bran are not capable of those cognitive functions but when they mature and have those parts of the brain then they are able to think and have consciousness. The manipulated variable is the existence of parts of the brain and the responding variable is obviously the consciousness and the ability to think.

http://bigthink.com...
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca...
https://www.seeker.com...

"How do you account for morality in your worldview?"

Morality is not objective and absolute. It evolves overtime. In the past, slavery was okay and women's rights were a joke same with homosexuality being condemned. Nowadays, homosexuals have rights, women have rights and slavery is punishable. This proves morality is subjective. Even today there is subjectivity in morality, polygamy is encouraged in middle east while it is punishable in the west. Child marriage is okay in India but it is a punishable offence in the west. Homosexuals are killed in arabia but given rights here in the west. I account for the morality of the west which i align with by reasoning. Immanuel Kant said "reason is the source of morality". I base my morality on empathy and reasoning and what makes sense not a book written by cavemen or bedouins.

Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): 5Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

Leviticus 20:13
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

1 Corinthians 14:34"35 (NIV)
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Is this how you account for your morality?

because Jesus endorsed the old testament

Mathew 5 :

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. .... 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Con drops most of his rebuttals to other points.
wmickas

Con

If you are going to analyze Christianity honestly (which I don't know that you willing to do), you have into account Christian scholarship on these issues. Your refusal to do so would show me and the audience that you are dishonest. Look at what the church fathers said on these issues. You still have not answered my rebuttal on the flat earth. I have asked you a simple question and I will ask it again. Did the writers of the Bible have access to the technology that we have today? Was God trying to communicate to those people in a way that they could understand? Scientists do this all the time when they write books. They try to explain their research to lay people who have not done the research that they have did. For this cause the reader may not fully understand their research. Your answers to the questions are circular. You answer is that the laws of logic are necessary. This tells me nothing. How did they originate? You answer the question of the uniformity of nature with the laws of physics. Again, this tells me that the laws of physics exists because the laws of physics exist. You answer your senses and reasoning with chemical reactions. How do you know these chemical reactions are reliable? If morality is not objective and absolute, then you have no objection to the Biblical verses you mentioned or child marriage or polygamy. It is different strokes for different folks. I will answer these Bible verses in the comments if my opponent wishes. If you want to learn about the fatal flaws of the Miller Urey experiment I recommend Icons of Evolution or In the Beginning by: Dr. Walt Brown. In the article he cited called Truth in Science, if you read the article shows that there are more problems with this experiment. The article concludes, "Dr H P Yockey (in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981, 91, 26-29) wrote, You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present" Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, " it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public." I will now allow my opponent to respond.
Debate Round No. 4
Moelogy

Pro

Rebuttal one : analysis of the church fathers

Why do I have to depend on someone else to interpret the word of God? If God truly wants to establish a loving relationship with everyone and has revealed his word through the bible, then why is it that I have to go to someone else to interpret what the bible says?

I interpret the bible in two ways, either literally or as an allegory. I have demonstrated that if we intrepret the bible literally, it becomes a disaster because of all the immoral acts, contradictions and anti-scientific claims (like flat earth, denial of evolution, young earth). So If the bible is to be interpreted in the literal sense, it would be a false doctrine. However, if the bible was intended as an allegory by its writers, christianity and the bible is no different than other religious metaphors like Norse mythology, Greek Mythology, etc.

R2 : Flat Earth

" Did the writers of the Bible have access to the technology that we have today?"

No, they did not.

"Was God trying to communicate to those people in a way that they could understand?"

Whatever his intentions were, he made multiple false claims in the bible proving the bible is a false book.

"They try to explain their research to lay people who have not done the research that they have did."

I do not understand the relation of this to God saying the world has four corners, Earth has an edge or has ends.

R3) Logic

"How did they originate?"

I stated before that they are necessary uncaused concepts just like other abstract and necessary concepts. asking how did the laws of logic originate is like asking how did the number "7" originate? It did not originate from anywhere. It is an intellectual necessity. How is your worldview better at accounting for the laws of logic?

R4) laws of physics

"laws of physics exists because the laws of physics exist"

Well all of the laws of physics have an explanation. I am obviously not going to go through the explanation for all laws of physics but an example like gravity happens because matter with mass bends the space-time fabric which attracts other matter with mass to this curvature.

R5) Reasoning

"How do you know these chemical reactions are reliable?"

What does this even mean? What do you mean by "reliable"? They serve their function, that is it.

R6) morality

" then you have no objection to the Biblical verses you mentioned or child marriage or polygamy."

I do because from the western worldview (which I adhere to because it is the most rational stance for me), these things are atrocious and malicious that only the most immoral of creatures would do or encourage.

" I will answer these Bible verses in the comments if my opponent wishes."

You should respond to them here, that is what debate rounds are for.

R7) abiogenesis

" If you want to learn about the fatal flaws of the Miller Urey experiment I recommend Icons of Evolution or In the Beginning by: Dr. Walt Brown. In the article he cited called Truth in Science"

My opponent simply refers me to some articles to read. The purpose of a debate is to present the evidence supporting your stance on an issue not to redirect me to one of the millions of scientific papers and books there are. It is only suffice if you present the evidence in those papers or books and then use them as reference. However, just merely sourcing those papers is not enough.

"You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present" Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, " it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public.""

quoting scientists alone is not very responsible behavior. This is an argument from authority and not a valid verification of your stance. The fact that this person is not very reputable is a deterimental to your case and does not help it. You should be citing the evidence and proof the author of this paper uses and not just using blanket statements that the author makes. On this basis, I will have to reject your reasoning due to a lack of evidence.

In conclusion, My opponent concedes his case for Christianity since he provides no evidence for his stance and does not meet his burden of proof.

He concedes his rebuttals on multiple fatal points such as the time trilemma, contradictions in the bible, scientific absurdities in the bible (young earth, no evolution, no big bang) and provides a feeble rebuttal for the flat earth in the bible which frankly, consisted mostly of arguments from authorities (from the church fathers).

Vote Pro.
wmickas

Con

This debate is over Christianity vs Atheism. There is a debate over what Genesis means from pre-Darwinian Church fathers to today. He ignores this saying that he wants to interpret it all in a literal sense. I believe he picks and chooses to show the Bible in the worst light possible. I take the Bible as a whole in context (literary -what does the Greek and Hebrew say?- and historical) It is because of this, many debates have taken place in Christianity for about 2000 years. He did answer my questions. Here is my point, to explain to something to someone who does not have knowledge of the subject requires the use of analogies. These analogies have limits in their explanatory power. I believe he answers my questions with circular reasoning with no foundation to base logic, uniformity of nature, senses, reasoning or morality on. When I quoted the scientist in the article Truth in Science was from his own article that he shared which means that the authors of his own sources article show uncertainty about the origin of life.
In conclusion, if you would like know know the hope that is only found in Christ, please go to http://blazeofhope.weebly.com....
If you want to talk to me please go to http://blazeofhope.weebly.com...
If you want to debate me, please go to http://blazeofhope.weebly.com....
If you want me to be a guest speaker,please go to http://blazeofhope.weebly.com...
Thank you for your participation, God bless!
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Moelogy 5 months ago
Moelogy
Was just playing the devil's advocate.
Posted by Moelogy 6 months ago
Moelogy
http://www.talkorigins.org... - primate-to-man evolution diagram to replace the faulty link.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...
http://s.hswstatic.com... - four-year-old Jiaxue

The real links ^ for atavisms since the one in the video does not work

http://www.dailymail.co.uk... - indian boy with tail that affected his upright posture (atavism from primate ancestors who could not walk upright)
Posted by Moelogy 6 months ago
Moelogy
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Names of the fossils in the primate-to-man evolution.
Posted by Moelogy 6 months ago
Moelogy
[24] https://upload.wikimedia.org...(by).jpg

http://classics.mit.edu...

The shadow on the moon casted by the Earth during a lunar eclipse is always round meaning the Earth is a sphere

[25]

http://www.popsci.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

The video was even zoomed in on the ship (as evidenced by the large duck) and there was no ship.

[26]

https://www.liveleak.com...

http://www.smarterthanthat.com...

http://www.smarterthanthat.com...

[27] http://www2.astro.psu.edu...

https://www.khanacademy.org...

http://biologyclermont.info...

[28] http://www.smarterthanthat.com...
but this is not what happens as evidenced by the hidden sun at night

[29] https://www.youtube.com...

might want to sign in to view the video
Posted by Moelogy 6 months ago
Moelogy
[23]

Europeans : - Rossetta

- http://static6.businessinsider.com...

- http://www.esa.int...

Indians :

- https://www.universetoday.com...

Chinese :

- the Chinese Chang"e-5 T1 spacecraft. - https://www.universetoday.com...

Nasa is reliable because of the predictive power and multiple verification and confirmations of other nations.

Nasa is reliable since its findings and discoveries have been confirmed by multiple nations like Indians, Chinese, Europeans, Russians, Canadians and even companies like Red Bull.

Moreover, Nasa has absolute predictive power which shows that it is a reliable source of information.

a small list of Nasa's accurate predicitons include :

- Transit of Venus of 2004
- Transit of venus 2012
- Transit of mercury 2003
- Transit of mercury 2006
- Transit of mercury 2016
- Literally all solar eclipses -https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov... Including Total Lunar Eclipse December 21 2010
- Literally all Lunar eclipses - https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Predictions to watch out for :

- Transit of mercury 2019
- Solar eclipse in america - Aug. 21, 2017 and Apr. 8, 2024
Posted by philochristos 6 months ago
philochristos
You should probably put a definition for atheism, too.
No votes have been placed for this debate.