atheism vs God
Debate Rounds (5)
Rather than making all of my arguments (there are way to many) i'm going to start with rebuttal
My opponent's argument: "The one true God by the name of Yahweh created everything that exists. The Bible is 100% truth front to back. Atheism, Buddhism, Islam, and every other religion is a lie. Christianity and Judaism are two middle fingers in God's face".
I will go through this piece by piece.
1:"The one true God by the name of Yahweh created everything that exists."
My opponent states his opinion here, Since opinion means nothing in a debate, this doesn't have any relevance.
My opponent goes on to say that God created everything that exists
This is very undefined, If god created everything that means that you do not believe in any science, you also don't believe in birth or growth. Again you have shown no evidence and just stated your opinion.
The definition of create is: to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
Therefore you are claiming that God makes all of our cloths, god makes our music, god makes our food etc. If god creates everything than that means you also disagree with the term "Man Made"
My opponent goes on to say that the bible is 100% true
the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.
Also called Hebrew Scriptures. the collection of sacred writings of the Jewish religion: known to Christians as the Old Testament.
Since there are 2 definitions of the bible and my opponent has not clarified which one he is talking about therefore we can disregard this claim although once again my opponent does not supply any evidence or reasoning.
Finally we get to the end of my opponents claim which is just saying that everybody else is wrong, and he and his beliefs are the only correct ones. This section of his claim is just childish and pathetic and once again he supplies no evidence whatsoever.
All together I practically have already won because my opponent has just stated his broad inconsiderate opinion.
thank you and I look forward to the next round
He says that my opening statement that the one true God by the name of Yahweh created everything is just an opinion. But if this statement is in fact true, than it is not opinion, but fact. It is my opponent's job to prove this statement false.
Next off, God DID create EVERYTHING that exists. I'm sure that my opponent is aware that everything that is "man made" or "formed by man" already exists in another form before the the reforming of it into another form.
Ex. Cotton from cotton plants is "formed" into a shirt.
And on the subject of plant and growth: I want to make aware to my opponent that everything that grows, has grown, or will grow (whether plant or being) already exists within the pre existing plant or being, and on down the line all the way back to the first that was CREATED by God. This is a scientific fact. Nothing is being created, and nothing is passing into non existence. It is the cycle of reproduction.
The Bible: I called it the Bible for a quick reference as to what I'm talking about. I will clarify: ALL OF IT in it's original form from Genesis to Revelation. Old Testament in Hebrew, and New Testament from the Aramaic Peshita. In these forms, we have many ancient manuscripts that all agree about 99.9% of the way through, word for word, letter for letter. 365 manuscripts in Aramaic for the New Testament alone that date back to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries. Do the American and world history books of today hold this much evidence of being fact?
My statement about all the religions was simply a disclaimer so that no one thinks I'm on any of their boats. A religion is a cult, a relationship with the true God is pure.
My opponent argues that I did not supply and rebuttal to his claim but this is simply because he did not supply any ideas for me to argue against. There are many religions that have different interpretations of god. My opponent simply stated a claim that one was better than the others and the others did not exist. however he did not supply any evidence or facts for me to counter, the layout of a debate is arguments and evidence first round and then rebuttal but how am I supposed to make a rebuttal without any arguments. Even with this predicament I will try to supply evidence that shows that my opponents claim is incorrect
1. my opponent said that the Bible is 100% true but we have countless ways to prove that it is not true, many from science
therefore I will post a quote from an article showing just some of these http://www.atheismresource.com...
"The bible has been proven wrong about a great number of things, not the least of which is its central idea: that a man rose from the dead. We know this is impossible. The bible makes a magnificent glory about such an event"s impossibility: otherwise, why would god be required? The problem is that there"s no evidence that it occurred. The same can be said for walking on water, living in the belly of a fish, staffs turning into snakes, people turning into pillars of salt, etc. This is not even mentioning "prophecies" like the city of Tyre never being rebuilt (Ezekiel 26:14"Tyre is still around to this day) or a global flood (which was completely missed in the historical records of civilizations like Egypt"s Sixth Dynasty, which should have been destroyed."
Ok now that you have read that I want to remind you that my opponent's claim is that the bible is 100% true therefore in order to prove me wrong he must supply EVIDENCE that all of the above things are actually possible (walking on water,rising from the dead, etc...)
2. I am not even sure what to say to pro's first claim "The one true God by the name of Yahweh created everything that exists" except for the fact that it is such a wild claim to me that without any evidence I do not believe I need to even talk about it. And that for Pro to prove it correct he would have to prove that every other god of every other religion is not "true" and that "Yahweh" created everything.
3. unfortunately my opponent has only supplied those arguments and their last point is just dissing other religions and beliefs, however I would argue that due to the fact that you show no proof for "Christianity and Judaism are two middle fingers in God's face." Also this is just such an inappropriate thing to say in a mature atmosphere people do not discriminate against their enemy's. (I personally would count this as conduct in the voting stages)
4. finally I want to address the fact that you said "Atheism, Buddhism, Islam, and every other religion is a lie" which is so broad that it would be impossible for you to prove in this debate.
I want the voters to think about how broad and non factual a debate this is. And how pro has not even tried to prove one bit of his claim, and I want them to see that Pro has also made discriminatory remarks about other beliefs which is not appropriate to do. And even if the voters do agree with Pro on this subject I would ask that they make their decisions based on who debated better, because after all this is a debating website and to be honest Religion is not an easy subject to debate without opinions it is like a debate on "Which is better skiing or snowboarding" that debate doesn't work because there is no facts to prove that one is better than the other so you must judge the debate solely on there debating skills.
I am sorry for straying from the debate topic but I think it is important that the debate not be judged or fought over opinions.
First of all I would like to validate the Bible as a trust worthy reference to history:
I already spoke of the manuscript evidence that shows that these writings have not been altered or changed through time, but have been kept sacred. This shows that, apart from how unbelievable an event may seem, it is more trust worthy than the American and world history books of today which everyone regards as fact. And just because there is a city named the same as the one in the Bible, does not mean it was the same one at all. You may know of many passages in the Bible that seem to contradict. I would like to hear a couple, because I see this happen too often due to either miss translation or miss interpretation of the Bible.
For the things written that are deemed impossible:
You mentioned many miracles that are written in the bible, and claimed that it did not happen based on impossibility under the laws of physics. Let me ask, how did the universe BEGIN? Newton's first law states: "An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless an external force acts upon it, and an object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an external force acts upon it." http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion
Antoine Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that mass can neither be created nor destroyed. http://en.wikipedia.org.... Within these two laws of physics alone it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to simply "come to be" out of absolutely nothing. But we know for sure that is did, somehow; and "how" is the debate. Likewise, as the BEGINNING of the universe is impossible and yet we do not deny the existence of it, we also must not deny the existence of the happenings of the miracles in the Bible strictly on impossibility. Rather, we investigate the probability if the God that did things deemed impossible under laws of physics in the Bible, Is the same God that did the impossible thing of CREATING the universe. You may ask, "what proof do you have that it had to be a God that did the impossible?" My answer: What or who ever did this thing impossible, had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe, being that the universe did not exist. something or someone this powerful, whether animate or inanimate has to be considered a God. And if done alone, the only God.
So now the question is, animate or inanimate? First of all let us define animate and inanimate.
1. alive, possessing life
2. of or relating to animal life
3. able to move voluntarily
1. not alive, especially in the manner of animals and humans
2. showing no signs of life, lifeless
From Google translate.
Think of this.. Can a rock DO anything by itself? how about a plant? water? a tree? no, because none possess life. What about a cat? dog? lion? human? The answer is yes to all, because all possess live, or are living. So we see that it is not an inanimate god that can DO something as impossible as CREATE the universe, or let alone be a god at all, But It has to be an animate God or, living God, that brought all things into existence.
So recapping, we see that all of creation demands there to be an intelligent and living creator that operates outside the laws of physics. And if this is so, it would be no big thing for any of the miracles of the bible to happen.
Man_Of_Few_Words forfeited this round.
The rock layers: According to evolution, the rock layers took millions of years to form. We have found standing petrified trees within these rock layers that supposedly formed over the course of millions of years?? The sediments would not have slowly formed around these trees. The trees would have fallen over dead. But let's say there was a flood... scientists have found that the rock layers would form in about twenty minutes naturally if there was a world wide flood.
We have also found a closed petrified clam (clams open when they die) at the top of Mt. Everest. How did that get up there??
Evolution?? So once upon a time there was a rock, and eventually, after millions of years, that became intelligent life? Wow, seems scientific. (sarcasm) Could I get some proof, or at least some science and logic on that please?
The only mutations that have ever been found were negative. The Earth is digressing. Disease is spreading rampantly. Everything is at a constant rate of deterioration. (law of deterioration) This is not evolution, this is digression.
I still need an answer to my previous argument.
Man_Of_Few_Words forfeited this round.
Man_Of_Few_Words forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not dispute any of Con's claims of the impossibility of "miracles," and Pro relies on the Bible for any type of argument, yet Con forfeited.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.