The Instigator
truthseeker613
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

evidence for Judaism

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,121 times Debate No: 15938
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (8)

 

truthseeker613

Pro

I argue that there is evidence for the validity of Judaism. mainly that there is a god, and he dictated the old testament. In the request for debate my opponent asked for evidence on Judaism. I there for will assume that god is a given. If not please tell me and I will address it in more detail Anthe next round. I will very briefly quickly state some basic well known evidence for god. then move on to Judaism. one piece of evidence is basically the complexity of the universe. another is the problem of first cause. Some/all evidence of Judaism is also evidence for god. I now will precede with some of the evidence for Judaism. first is revelation at Sinai. evidence of "revelation at Sinai" is as following: People observed it and communicated it to others, through communication a story does not die with the death of the generation that observed it, rather it is trans generational it remains being passed down generation to generation by millions of people from millions of people to millions of people in a continuous chain for over 2000 years. The message has been that your ancestors experienced along with hundreds of thousands of other people the revelation of god. (the Jews are not the only one with this tradition the Muslims and Christians have accepted the revelation at Sinai. so now they are also passing it down making it billions.). I will alow con to respond. then continue.
socialpinko

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for initiating this debate. For the short time that I have been on DDO I have honestly never seen a debate on the existence of the Jewish god in particular. I look forward to a stimulating debate!

//"I argue that there is evidence for the validity of Judaism. mainly that there is a god, and he dictated the old testament."//

This quote from my opponent I think is more accurate of the resolution which he is defending then the title, "evidence for Judaism". To win this debate my opponent must prove that A.)There is a god B.)This is the god of Judaism and C.)He dictated the old testament. I should say it is a good thing that my opponent set this debate for 5 rounds as my opponent has quite a lot to prove.

//"I there for[sic] will assume that god is a given. If not please tell me and I will address it in more detail Anthe[sic] next round."//

I do not accept that a pre-requisite that god exists will be assumed for this debate.I have now let my opponent know this so that as stated above he can adress it in more detail over the next few rounds.

Now to define the terms of this debate so to keep confusion to a minimum.

Jehovah(YHWH): The Jewish god is monotheistic, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent, is the creator of the universe and everything in the universe, interacts in human affairs(such as answering prayers), and delivered the Ten Commandments to Moses at Mount Sinai.

These are the defining characteristics that I believe my opponent must prove exist as properties of god after my opponent proves that a god does exist. If my opponent has any problems with these characteristics or believes that the god he is advocating does not embody any of these characteristics I ask my opponent to either PM me about this or leave a comment in the comment section.

Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.[1]

Exist: to have actual being; be[2]

I will ask my opponent to first show evidence that a god does exist and then expand upon his evidence for the validity of the Jewish religion in particular.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
truthseeker613

Pro

(Before I continue I would like to make a point that I think will be effective in decreasing a possible cause of bias that may be had by any one viewing this debate. The point is, unlike other major religions in the world truth of Judaism does not require one to become Jewish. A gentile who is good (abides by the 7 noahide laws) gets reward and does not go to hell a none-Jew may convert but does not have to.).
With regard to your definition of god, I agree to god is one. Regarding the others, god is not physical and these are not descriptions of who he is but rather of what he does.
Evidence is as defined by Webster's as an out ward sign: indication. I basically agree with your definition of evidence.

With regard to evidence of god: first of all is the point of first cause if the universe was always in existence the age of the universe would be infinite the problem with this is that infinity plus anything, equals infinity if so time is not continuing . The universe is not getting older. This is a paradox. To make this point better I'll put it this way. If I say the big bang occurred 15,000,000,000 years ago, and the age of the universe is infinite. It follows that the atoms were existing in the gaseous state, for infinite time until they collided. If so they were in a pre explosion state for an infinite amount of time. I will now make a paradoxical equation: total time that the atoms existed is infinity now subtract the amount of time that they existed in the pre explosion state, which is infinity. And you have the amount of time that the atoms existed in the post bang state as 0. To simplify I will put it in equation form and move on. Total age of atoms=a time in pre bang state= b time in post state= c
a=b+c. a-b=c. a=infin. b=inf. If so c=0. If god created the world there is no problem bec. Time is also a creation and did not exist before creation.
A related point is if there is no creator was the cause of the gas of the big bang? Furthermore what caused them to be in motion?
Next is the point of complexity. The unbelievable complexity of the world, lends its self to the idea that intelligence was behind I, unless you use the theory of evolution. If you wish to argue the theory of evolution, I will respond in the next round. Both of these points are evidence of god as the creator of the universe. Now according to the law of conservation of mass, mass cannot be created. If god created the universe that means he did the imposable. This is evidence that god is all powerful.
Another piece of evidence is the millions of claims of miracles many books of miracles have been written hundreds (I am being extremely conservative it's probably thousands if not millions.) of people from various religions testify to having experienced miracles. Many hundreds, if not thousands of have returned to religion as a result of miracles. This may be weak but it is a weak piece of evidence, never the less combined with the other evidence I felt it worth mentioning. I may strengthen this point with specific examples in future rounds.
Next piece of evidence is also weak but I will mention it briefly. The evidence is that as opposed to other religions in the bible Moses was punished and died for sinning against god. The point is made that a human making up the story would not have made the leader and right hand man of god die that way. As is found in other religions, the leader dies a glorious death. Again as the previous point this is not very strong but in light of other evidence I felt it worth mentioning.
The last piece of evidence that I will present for now is the evidence of chain of transmission of the revelation at Sinai. Evidence of "revelation at Sinai" is as following: hundreds of thousands observed it and communicated it to others. Through communication the story does not die with the death of the generation that observed it, rather it is trans generational it remains being passed down generation to generation by millions of people from millions of people to millions of people in a continuous chain for over 2000 years. The message has been that your ancestors experienced along with hundreds of thousands of other people the revelation of god, and the giving of the bible. (The Jews are not the only one with the tradition of the revelation, the Muslims and Christians have accepted the revelation at Sinai. So they have also been passing it down, making it billions.).
I will pause here to allow con to respond. After his response I will add evidence if necessary.
socialpinko

Con

My opponent's point that one does not need to become Jewish so as to discourage biased voting is confusing. A better reason I would think is that it is unethical, unfair, or ruins the point of debate. Anyways I will now move on to my opponent's arguments.

It is hard to summarize my opponent's first argument that something must have originated the big bang. My opponent shows his ignorance by completely ignoring my argument from R1. I will try to show my opponent's response to my refutations of his first argument below.

Total age of atoms=a
time in pre bang state= b
time in post state= c

1.-a(total age)=b+c.
2.-a(total age)-b=c.
3.-a=infin. b=inf. If so c=0.

My opponent's third point does not logically follow from his first two as if a and b are both infinite then the value of c is of absolutely no importance as it cannot possible change the value of a or b as they are both infinite.

//"If god created the world there is no problem bec. Time is also a creation and did not exist before creation."//

This makes absolutely no sense. I already argued that time is not a 'creation' but an inherent part of the universe. This still means that time did not exist before creation and is the same as saying that god created the universe except the unnecessary attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence are not needed. My opponent is simply adding unnecessary parts to this equation with little proof to back up his claims.

//"if there is no creator was the cause of the gas of the big bang? Furthermore what caused them to be in motion?"//

First, this is an argument from ignorance. Just because you do not have an answer does not mean that we must accept that the cause is god. Second, this does not prove in the slightest that the creator was the Judeo-Christian god.

Complexity

My opponent next brings up the point that te universe is too complex to have originated without the help of the creator. I ask that my opponent brings any proof to back up this claim before I respond.

//"Now according to the law of conservation of mass, mass cannot be created. If god created the universe that means he did the imposable. This is evidence that god is all powerful."//

What a fun piece of circular logic my opponent has provided! My opponent claims that because something is impossible that simply reinforces that his god is all powerful. This is like claiming that because an apple fell from a tree it means that there is an invisible man has a grudge against the ground and thus throws apples at it. My opponent's answer provides no answers.

Miracles

//"Another piece of evidence is the millions of claims of miracles many books of miracles have been written hundreds (I am being extremely conservative it's probably thousands if not millions.) of people from various religions testify to having experienced miracles."//

This piece of "evidence" cannot be accepted at this time as my opponent has not cited one single example of a miracle. He also tries to use miracles by people of other faiths as evidence of his own religion. I would ask that he explain this.

//"The last piece of evidence that I will present for now is the evidence of chain of transmission of the revelation at Sinai. Evidence of "revelation at Sinai" is as following: hundreds of thousands observed it and communicated it to others. Through communication the story does not die with the death of the generation that observed it, rather it is trans generational it remains being passed down generation to generation by millions of people from millions of people to millions of people in a continuous chain for over 2000 years."//

My opponent's last piece of "evidence" is that a lot of people believe something is true. I will ask my oponent not to commit the fallacy of the argument from popularity and actually bring real evidence of his religion to this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
truthseeker613

Pro

My opponent says," My opponent's point that one does not need to become Jewish so as to discourage biased voting is confusing. A better reason I would think is that it is unethical, unfair, or ruins the point of debate." I did not state the reasoning behind the point as that is irrelevant, rather I stated the reason why I made the point.
Quoting my opponent, "My opponent's third point does not logically follow from his first two as if a and b are both infinite then the value of c is of absolutely no importance as it cannot possible change the value of a or b as they are both infinite." I fail to understand my opponents' objection, so all I can do is attempt to clarify my point. I am using a form of argument called Reductio ad absurdum. What I am saying is that a and b cannot be infinite.
Next you argue with my assertion that if there is a god there is no paradox, by saying that time is an inherent part of the universe. To that I argue that time is relative, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, and has been proven in experimentation.
My opponent next criticizes my evidence of 1st cause (i.e. Cause of gases, and their movement); by stating a question is not a proof. To this I respond a question can be evidence when the question is answered by the idea being purposed. God created the gases and set them in motion. With regard to my opponents' statement that this doesn't prove specifically the Judeo-Christian god, He is correct in his statement however I will point out that I do not believe I implied that it was. This was evidence of god in general not a specific one.

Regarding the evidence of complexity my opponent asks for proof. I am uncertain of what needs proof. 1st I will reformat for clarity sake. And ask my opponent to clarify.
(1)The universe is caused or uncaused.
(2) Complex things are most likely caused by an intelligent being
(3) the universe is complex.
(4) Therefore, the universe is most likely caused by an intelligent being
If it is the fact that the world is complex that needs proof I believe that is preposterous for an intelligent human to question. If the universe isn't complex what is. I believe this is obvious and probably not my opponents problem. So I will leave it at this if necessary I will elaborate. I would rather not go on trying to conceive what my opponent is thinking so I will wait for his response.
Regarding my evidence of an all powerful god my opponent writes:" What a fun piece of circular logic my opponent has provided! My opponent claims that because something is impossible that simply reinforces that his god is all powerful. This is like claiming that because an apple fell from a tree it means that there is an invisible man has a grudge against the ground and thus throws apples at it. My opponent's answer provides no answers."
I would like to fix his wording for clarity sake since god did something imposable that shows he is all powerful. Now in your analogy you prove an occurrence based on an observation, using the fact that the stated occurrence explains the experienced event. What I have done here is quite different, I'm considering that god created the universe as a given as I have already provided evidence. I am using this occurrence (i.e. God's creation of the universe} as evidence of one of his characteristics.
Next regarding miracles my opponent states 2 criticisms a) failure to give specific examples. B) That I used miracles of other religions. He is right in his 1st point and in defense of myself I thought it was obvious that there are millions of claims. I will now respond with specifics, but 1st I would like to get the 2nd issue out of the way. True, my primary evidence is from those miracles claimed to have happened to Jews. However I consider all miracles to be evidence of god bec as I stated earlier according to Judaism god does not demand that all people follow Judaism. I will now get into more specifics with regard to miracles; however, due to the exhaustiveness of the issue I would like to get the last issue out of the way before delving into this topic.
My opponent wrights "My opponent's last piece of "evidence" is that a lot of people believe something is true. I will ask my opponent not to commit the fallacy of the argument from popularity and actually bring real evidence of his religion to this debate."
I am afraid I have been misunderstood I am not stupid enough to use numbers as evidence if that were so Christianity and Islam would be much stronger than Judaism. The evidence is experiential the message being passed from, by, and to millions is not one of belief rather one of experience. I hope I have sufficiently clarified this point. I can elaborate in the next round if necessary. Now back to miracles:
The 1st miracle is the miracle of creation, see above. God created an extraordinarily complex and intricate universe from nothing. If necessary I may elaborate on this in upcoming rounds.
The next miracles I present are the plagues in Egypt. Evidence for this can be found in exodus chapters 7 to 12. I have a feeling you won't like this so I will try to bring additional evidence but in your response please state if and why you don't like this evidence so I may deal with it further.. Some other evidence follows: The following is a paragraph taken from Wikipedia:
Archaeology
There is archaeological material that some Christian archaeologists, such as William F. Albright, have considered historical evidence of the Ten Plagues; for example, an ancient water-trough found in El Arish bears hieroglyphic markings detailing a period of darkness. Albright and other Christian archaeologists have claimed that such evidence, as well as careful study of the areas ostensibly traveled by the Israelites after the Exodus, makes discounting the biblical account untenable. The Egyptian Ipuwer papyrus describes a series of calamities befalling Egypt, including a river turned to blood... Another quote:
One more piece of evidence is the oral message like that of the revelation at Sinai.
Next miracle is exodus from Egypt: As before the main source is the bible, exodus chapters 12 to 16, with elaboration from commentary and midrashic sources. Again to quote outside sources I quote Wikipedia:
Extra-Biblical accounts
Main article: Moses in Hellenistic literature
The earliest non-Biblical account of the Exodus is by Hecataeus of Abdera (late 4th century BCE): the Egyptians blame a plague on foreigners and expel them from the country, whereupon Moses, their leader, takes them to Canaan, where he founds the city of Jerusalem.[46] More than a dozen later stories repeat the same basic theme, most of them with a marked anti-Jewish tendency...
Lastly as before there is an oral tradition of the exodus of an enslaved nation escaping Egypt with miracles such as the splitting of the sea.
(For anyone interested in the topic I herd of a book on the subject called Israel in Egypt by James Hoffmeier. In addition there is an accurate account of the plagues and exodus written in novel form called let my nation go by Yosef Deutsch)
Next miracle is the revelation of god at Sinai primary source is the bible exodus chapter 19. In addition to it is the oral tradition as stated earlier. If you would like elaboration please ask I'm trying to keep it short. Anyone interested in more can find a wealth of information by goggling "evidence of revelation at Sinai", and an accurate account in novel format called "Let my nation serve me" by Yosef Deutsch.)
Lastly for organizational purposes I would like to quickly mention that I already responded earlier to my opponents criticism of the tradition of revelation at Sinai. Briefly I clarified that I wasn't sighting evidence based on # of believers but rather experiential evidence that has been preserved both orally and in writing. From, by, and to millions in a continual chain. I apologize if I wrote too much, I left out alot of what I wanted to wright.
socialpinko

Con

I objected to my opponent's point if the total age of the universe is infinite and the age before the age of the earth is infinite then the age after the big bang must be zero. My opponent believes that this proves that there must have been a god to create the universe. I ask him to actually respond to my refutation of this erranous line of thinking. My opponent writes this on the question of first cause.

//"My opponent next criticizes my evidence of 1st cause (i.e. Cause of gases, and their movement); by stating a question is not a proof. To this I respond a question can be evidence when the question is answered by the idea being purposed."//

This is a magnificent piece of circular logic. So you are saying that if I proposed that I actually had lazer vision. And when you asked for proof, my "proof" was in the form of the question: Who besides Superman has lazer vision? Now just because I answer with "Spinko has lazer vision" does not make that the correct answer. But wait, this is exactly the same as what my opponent has said about his god claim. Can I have lazer vision, simply because I answered a question with that answer? Obviously not and this little piece of "evidence" put forth by my opponent should be discarded.

Next my opponent claims that because god did something that was "imposable" this just further proves that he is all powerful. I said that my opponent actually has to prove that god exist first which he did not. My opponent responds with:

//"Now in your analogy you prove an occurrence based on an observation, using the fact that the stated occurrence explains the experienced event. What I have done here is quite different, I'm considering that god created the universe as a given as I have already provided evidence. I am using this occurrence (i.e. God's creation of the universe} as evidence of one of his characteristics."//

My opponent assumes god is real as a given. This is where the fallacy lies and we may also discard this piece of "evidence".

I will now cite a quotation of my opponent's from the last round.

//"My opponent wrights "My opponent's last piece of "evidence" is that a lot of people believe something is true. I will ask my opponent not to commit the fallacy of the argument from popularity and actually bring real evidence of his religion to this debate."
I am afraid I have been misunderstood I am not stupid enough to use numbers as evidence if that were so Christianity and Islam would be much stronger than Judaism. The evidence is experiential the message being passed from, by, and to millions is not one of belief rather one of experience. I hope I have sufficiently clarified this point. I can elaborate in the next round if necessary. Now back to miracles:"//

This is no different from claiming that a lot of people are Jews. All you are saying is that a lot of people believe that Judaism is the one true religion. Now on to my opponent's alleged examples of miracles performed by god.

Miacle#1
The 1st miracle is the miracle of creation, see above. God created an extraordinarily complex and intricate universe from nothing. If necessary I may elaborate on this in upcoming rounds.

My opponent again makes the logical fallacy of believing that the universe coming into existence had to come from god. If it did then that means god exists. If it did not have to then god does not necessarily exist. My opponent must prove that the universe coming into existence had to be caused by god before this can be regarded as a miracle and thus evidence of god. The big bang and evolutionary theory very nicely explain the universe's and life's alleged complexity and my opponent must prove these two theories to be erranous before the god theory can be believed as the big bang and evolution explain life and the universe's complexity in a much better way.

Miracle#2
The next miracles I present are the plagues in Egypt. Evidence for this can be found in exodus chapters 7 to 12. I have a feeling you won't like this so I will try to bring additional evidence but in your response please state if and why you don't like this evidence so I may deal with it further.

My opponent is correct in stating that I will not accept the Bible as objective evidence for god's existence or miracles and I do ask that my opponent bring real evidence of miracles. Many claims in the Bible have not been corroborated by scientific inquiry such as the great flood, men living into the 900's and human life being created in a single day.

My opponent then simply copies and pastes a wikipedia page claiming that the plagues occured. Of course Wikipedia can be edited by any user so my opponent should at the very least cite more independent sources.

Miracle #3
Next miracle is the revelation of god at Sinai primary source is the bible exodus chapter 19.

Again, my opponent only provides a source from the Bible. I have already shown that the Bible does not have a good track record with science or objective fact and my opponent really needs to stop appealing to popularity and cite some real sources or facts.

I have shown that at the very least my opponent's logic is circular, fallacious, and severely lacking. My opponent has provided three examples of miracles which have either not been corroborated by scientific consensus or are based on circular logic. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
truthseeker613

Pro

Unfortunately it seems that the lines of communications are not working so well.
Regarding your 1st point please read carefully as I did respond to your "refutation". I will however try to put it another way which just occurred to me. Just as infinity has no beginning it also has no end. If the mass was in gas form for an infinite amount of time and infinity has no end it follows that it is still in gas form.
Regarding 1st cause, your analogy is not analogues bec. Your question is not a paradox, mine is, this is a classic argument.
Regarding "miracles", my opponent brings up the big bang and evolution as "better" alternatives. I don't have space to deal with it fully, one point I will make is the challenge of missing links.
I fail to understand why Wikipedia is a "unindependant" source. I will however bring some other sources for validity of bible in general, I give shmuel Waldman credit for these sources 1) W.F. Albright in his book "From the stone age to Christianity", …So many corroborations of details have been discovered in recent years that most competent scholars have given up the old critical theory… 2)Will Durant in "The story of civilization", "Each passing year adds to our store of knowledge and provides us with more and more documents, inscriptions, monuments, and excavations which confirm the bibles historical Accuracy…Science is now in a position to state categorically that the bible is factual till proven otherwise."
Regarding evidence of national revelation it is a piece of evidence that I too used to reject for years until I appreciated its validity. I therefore ask the reader to read and think carefully and objectively, and I will try to explain. Any comments are greatly appreciated so I can deal with them in the comments section or final round.
(Contrasts are not meant as rejections rather as a tool for clarification purposes.).
Many beliefs are based on a few people making a claim and people believing them and more people believing them and so on and so forth. (This may or may not be valid evidence; it is irrelevant to this debate.) In contrast Revelation at Sinai was experienced by hundreds of thousands (perhaps even over one million) of people who told their children who told their children and so on and so forth. What was transmitted was not just belief of a few people's claims. Rather it was a mass testimony of over 600,000 people experiencing an event. Those hundreds of thousands of witnesses testified on a yearly basis what they experienced to their hundreds of thousands of children. What is being transmitted is not just a belief based on a claim by some people. But a national experience of god by hundreds of thousands of witness ancestors, those hundreds of thousands of witnesses themselves gave over testimony of the event that they themselves experienced. They didn't simply believe it, the 1st generation experienced it. The next generation heard from those 600,000 witnesses who were their parents, ect. This testimony is based on a solid foundation. I apologize for repetition and length it is difficult for me to pinpoint exactly what is bothering my opponent.
Number of believers alone is not enough; a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If a belief was started by a claim by a few witnesses that is how strong the claim is no matter how many people believe them. A national experience is not based on a claim by a few people; it is a testimony of a nation experience. I hope I have made myself clear, feedback is appreciated. To summarize the main difference of revelation at Sinai is its base its base and beginning. Its base is over 600,000 witnesses its transmission has been from those 600,000 witnesses to their children in the form of a yearly testimony, and the testimony has been passed down in that way ever since.
I would now like to get to some other points particularly a combination of prophesy regarding the uniqueness of the Jew with quotes to show the realization of these prophesies.
Survival of the Jew: I would like to open with a quote from mark twain in his work entitled "Concerning the Jew":
"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in the world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?"
We see from these quotes the impressive eternity of the Jew. This has been foretold in the bible Genesis 17:7, Malachi 3:6, Leviticus 5:18, Jeremiah 5:18.

For the next quotes I give credit to simpletoremember.com:
"I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations ... They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe..."
- John Adams, Second President of the United States
(From a letter to F. A. Van der Kemp [Feb. 16, 1808] Pennsylvania Historical Society)
"If we were forced to choose just one, there would be no way to deny that Judaism is the most important intellectual development in human history."
- David Gelernter, Yale University Professor
"Some people like the Jews, and some do not. But no thoughtful man can deny the fact that they are, beyond any question, the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has appeared in the world."
- Winston Churchill - Prime Minister of Great Britain
There are more quotes but I choose these, as I am running out of space. The "Jewish light unto the nations" was foretold in Isaiah 42:6 end, ibid.60:3 genesis 12:2, 3.
Next is the correlation between fertility of the land of Israel and its inhabitation of the Jews.
Again I quote mark twain I don't have space to quote it in its entirety so the reader is encouraged to look it up "Innocent Abroad or the new pilgrim's progress", vol.2 pp.216-359. Mark Twain wrights of the desolation and unsuitability of the holy land. As we see today the land of Israel is now an agricultural land following the return of the Jews. The sources for this prophesy are Leviticus 26:32, 33 duteronamy29:21, 22 Jerimia9:10 Ezekiel33:28, 29 all predict the desolation of the land. The return is predicted in Deuteronomy 30:3-5 and its following inhabitation and fertilization in Ezekiel36:8-11. We see here the prediction and realization of the Jews miraculous return followed by the lands mysterious revitalization. I thank Shmuel Waldman for all biblical sources.
Alas I near the end of my allotted words so I am forced to stop. I await your respons
socialpinko

Con

Just as infinity has no beginning it also has no end. If the mass was in gas form for an infinite amount of time and infinity has no end it follows that it is still in gas form.

My opponent does not seem to understand my reasoning. The mass was not in gas form for an infinite amount of time as infinity refers to time and as time had not yet existed, it could not have been. My opponent does not seem to understand the definition of infinity.

Regarding 1st cause, your analogy is not analogues bec. Your question is not a paradox, mine is, this is a classic argument.

My opponent has not actually responded to my analogy but has only made the claim that it is not analogous. My opponent did not show why though and so I will ask that he does so in the next round.

Regarding "miracles", my opponent brings up the big bang and evolution as "better" alternatives. I don't have space to deal with it fully, one point I will make is the challenge of missing links.

For anyone who may not know what my opponent is referring to, I was refuting his argument that the very 'creation' of the universe must have been a miracle as it would not have been possible without god.

I responded that evolutionary theory and the big bang theory better explain the formation of life and the universe. My opponent responds in no way to the big bang theory but claims that evolution has 'missing links'. To this point I will concede as scientists do not have fossils from every single generation for every single species.

My opponent has also failed to show a single example of a link which would be needed to single handedly validate evolution which has not yet been found.

My opponent after this, instead of proving that the Bible is an accurate and factual piece of work, offers vague quotations from religious apologists which do not actually prove the Bible's accuracy. At best it is an argument from authority as no new information is brought except that so and so believe that the Bible is accurate.

"Science is now in a position to state categorically that the bible is factual till proven otherwise."

This is a quote by Will Durant which my opponent believes proves the validity of the Bible and therefore Judaism. This is a very weak form of argument and my opponent is simply trying to shift the BOP even as he is instigator and Pro of this debate.

After this my opponent moves on to his main argument, national revelation. My opponent brings no real argument but just makes a very weak argument from popularity. He tries to claim that it is not but this is my opponent's argument. "Judaism has been passed down for generations and generations and has gone from just a few people to millions."

This same argument can of course be made for any religion such as Christianity or Islam or any ideology really like libertarianism or liberalism. This is not new evidence to my opponent's case.

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 4
truthseeker613

Pro

Response:

With regard to my opponent's response to my argument of infinity, I quote:
"My opponent does not seem to understand my reasoning. The mass was not in gas form for an infinite amount of time as infinity refers to time and as time had not yet existed, it could not have been."
Not only did my opponent not say this, he actually said the opposite in R2 I cut and past his words here "I already argued that time is not a 'creation' but an inherent part of the universe."((I don't know were he "already" argued it, probably with another person.)).
I claimed god is not bound by time as we see from Einstein's law of relativity time is not an absolute independent entity my opponent didn't respond to that nor did he retract his claim, now his words are in contradiction.
My opponent continues: "My opponent does not seem to understand the definition of infinity".
No explanation. I quote now from Wikipedia:" Infinity (symbol: ∞) is a concept in many fields, most predominantly mathematics and physics, that refers to a quantity without bound or end.". Thus I argue if the atoms were in that state for infinite time, by definition it would still be that way.
Regarding my argument of 1st cause my opponent gave an analogy to my proof which was based on a paradox I explained that it wasn't analogues as in his case their was no paradox. My opponent asked me to explain, I don't know what needs explaining but I will try. I am saying it doesn't make sense to say there is no god because. If so there would be no way to create and cause the collision of the gas.
Going now to the topic of national revelation: 1st my opponent miss quotes me showing that I was not at all understood he quotes me as such ""Judaism has been passed down for generations and generations and has gone from just a few people to millions."" No. No. and No again I tried drilling this point in last round. It was not "few" people it started with hundreds of thousands (if not over 1,000,000) of witnesses this is what makes Judaism diff. from all other beliefs, all other beliefs fit my opponents quote. My point is that this national revelation was witnessed by hundreds of thousands which is what gives it its credibility this is a main point I've been making.

Summary:

1) Evidence of god:
a) Evidence that the mass didn't always exist in gas form, because if they did they would still be that way. My opponent and I have been going back and forth regarding this, see above.
((b) Evidence of a god from the problem of 1st cause. If the gas was not always there, where did it come from according to the law of conservation of mass and energy.)?)
c) Without god what put the mass in motion. This was discussed back and forth before see above.
d) Evidence of god from complexity. 1st mentioned in R2, and clarified upon request in R3.
e) Miracles: I did mess up on this a little as I forgot to bring evidence for the fact that millions have claimed to experience miracles. I thought it was obvious but my opponent questioned it and I failed to adequately respond. I mentioned some miracles but forgot to give evidence for that point. I mentioned a number of the most spectacular miracles:
1e) Creation of the world: my opponent countered this with the big bang and evolution. I find it not likely that this explains the universe as mentioned previously in bullets a,b,c,d.
2e) Exodus of the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage: I gave 2 pieces of archeological evidence for this from Wikipedia. My opponent objected to my use of Wikipedia as a source but did not respond to my question of why.
3e) Revelation at Sinai: This has been one of the man points of this debate see above and below.

2) Evidence specifically for Judaism:
a) National revelation: This point has been a major one in this debate as it is one of the main cornerstones of Judaism. The main point that I've been trying to explain to my opponent is that this is not simply a popularity thing. I'd like to quote from something I mentioned in the message box. "Regarding national revelation, as I explained twice in the previous round as well as in the comments there is a fundamental difference between my point and the point of popularity. If I were using just a popularity reason I would have just said major religions (Christianity, Islam, sikism, Baha'i, and Jews) totaling 3.4bil. or 53% of the world believes in the revelation at Sinai).That is not my main point as I have stated. I myself did not always appreciate this piece of evidence so I cannot blame my opponent; this point took me years to appreciate. I will try again to explain it I ask the reader to think carefully and objectively"
I apologize to anyone who gets it already (you can skip to the last section) for spending so much time on it but it is a crucial point, and I don't seem to be getting it across to my opponent I will try one final time I will be brief as I've already discussed it so much, It may help reread what i wrote in previos rounds.
I totally agree with my opponent popularity is not evidence. To quote my professor Dovid gottlieb "we count reasons not #'s". Case in point, hundreds of years ago just about everyone, "scientists" included believed the world was flat, is that evidence ? No. why? Because they didn't have very good reason to think so. Point being a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The fact that a lot of people believing something does not make it true, you have to ask them why they believe it,if they have a good reason go with it. If you ask a proper Jew how he knows that there was a revelation at Sinai he should have a reason, "my father told me so". Now according to what I stated before that alone is a pretty weak unless we know why the father believes it. The answer to the question of why his father believes it is, because. His father told him now we play the same game all over again. Until we reach the great great ect. Grandfather who believes because he along with hundreds of thousands of his fellow nationals experienced this. Solid.
I apologize for all of this I am extremely frustrated at my inability to get this message across. I am trying every way I can think of. Perhaps it can only be grasped with time or age. If anyone has any specific problems please put it in the comments section and I will respond, but I think at the very least I have addressed all the comments made by my opponent which is all I am supposed to do in this debate.
b) Regarding the entire 2nd half of what I wrote in R4 (the 1st half was response), regarding accuracy of predictions made in the bible regarding the uniqueness of Jews (there may have been more I only had room for 3) my opponent did not respond at all.
socialpinko

Con

Evidence of god

a.)Evidence that the mass didn't always exist in gas form, because if they did they would still be that way

My opponent did not show any evidence as to why mass would always have to exist in gas form.

b) Evidence of a god from the problem of 1st cause. If the gas was not always there, where did it come from according to the law of conservation of mass and energy.)?

I explained to my opponent that time is a part of the universe and therefore before the universe existed, there was no time and therefore the universe is not bound by the law of casualty.

c)

Pretty much the same as A and B.

d)Evidence of god from complexity. 1st mentioned in R2, and clarified upon request in R3.

If things which are complex need a cause then something which had designed said complex thing must be even more complex and thus need a cause.

e)My opponent has conceded that he has not brought adequate evidence to prove that even 1 miracle has ever happened.

1e) Creation of the world
My opponent believes that the world coming into existence must have been a miracle, however I countered this with the theory of evolution and the big bang

2e) Exodus
My opponent thinks that the Jews leaving Egypt is a miracle even though the only evidence he used to uphold it was the Bible which I had shown to be unlikely to be true.

3e) Sinai
My opponent showed no evidence that this ever happened other than the Bible.

Evidence for Judaism

a) National revelation
My opponent has tried to pass this off as something more than an argument from popularity. However his argument goes that a lot of people have passed on the religion of Judaism and so this is somehow evidence that god exists. He has shown no evidence to prove that it is anything more.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
Regarding national revelation, As I explained twice in the previous round as well as in the comments there is a fundamental difference between my point and the point of popularity. If I were using just a popularity reason I would have just said major religions (Christianity, Islam, sikism, Baha'i, and Jews) totaling 3.4bil. or 53% of the world believes in the revelation at Sinai).That is not my main point as I have stated. I myself did not always appreciate this piece of evidence so I cannot blame my opponent; this point took me years to appreciate. I will try again to explain it I ask the reader to think carefully and objectively
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
I'll do a debate on evolution with you when I finish all of my current debates. It could be about a week though.
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
I challenged you on evolution and you didn't accept. I don't have space to argue it fully here but I would love to debate it some other time
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
sorry I mixed my words at the beginning of the previous comment. I was just saying I plan to devote most of round 4 to national revelation.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
I hope you bring more on the topic of national revelation then you did last round. It's really the weakest argument you brought and I would hardly base a debate off of it.
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
The issue of god was not my original intention what I write in round 3 will be enough on go I can focus on the national revelation, which was misunderstood social pinko. You expected that I was giving the dumb argument of #. read carefully, key word here is experience. see my response in the 2nd part of round 3. right before and after I discus miracles.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
It's not much of an argument. It is simply an argument from popularity and nothing else.
Posted by jat93 5 years ago
jat93
i'm hoping that your topic shifts to the idea of national revelation that your opponent brought up earlier. after all, he claims that judaism's claim to national revelation s what makes it exceptional.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
My opponent initiated the debate. I say that if he thinks the Jewish god is the one true god then he must first prove that there is a god in the first place. For the Jewish god to be the one true god we must operate on the premise that god exists which I believe is unfounded.
Posted by jat93 5 years ago
jat93
socialpino, i understand that pro must establish the existence of any god at all, but you know it would be nice to see a debate about specifically jewish doctrine, (which i assume you find fallible and thus reject-able) instead of the usual god does not exist crap you see here every five minutes...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
truthseeker613socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: I am Jewish so I agree with the pro. I commend the con for using good debate tactics like dodging the argument with small errors from the pro. But I agree with Cons argument. I gave conduct because con accused pro of not responding when he did.
Vote Placed by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
truthseeker613socialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly did not understand the argument of national revelation, But that may have been pros fault for not presenting it in a lucid manner. The real desiding factor was pros final argument which it seems con as well as the other voters did not even bother reading. As it was not adressed at all.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
truthseeker613socialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This says it all: http://www.debate.org/debates/pro-should-have-won-this-debate/2/ Also a counter to jd6089. I would invite him to read my round 4 and concluding statements which he clearly didn't do.
Vote Placed by jd6089 5 years ago
jd6089
truthseeker613socialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped an argument. End of story. I would like to see this debate done over.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
truthseeker613socialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments could have been better on both sides, and there were too many points brought up and just whitewashed more so than explored. However Pro had the BoP and his presentation was in the form of lt;dr so was very difficult to maintain the inertia necessary to retain the argument.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 5 years ago
XimenBao
truthseeker613socialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Roy nailed it.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
truthseeker613socialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Judaism could have been defended as a cultural tradition, independent of God, and that would have made a better debate, and a winnable one. As it is, proving the existence of God and of the Jewish God in particular is way too much of a burden to prove in a debate like this. Pro had may S&G errors: "outward." capitalization errors, should have a blank line between paragraphs. Con not great, but not so bad. Con was unnecessarily insulting.
Vote Placed by anarcholibertyman 5 years ago
anarcholibertyman
truthseeker613socialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The argument from popularity is a clear fallacy and Pro simply tried to dress it up as something more.