The Instigator
roland54
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
18Karl
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

is the bible true, with reference to genesis one

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 2 votes the winner is...
18Karl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 474 times Debate No: 62239
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

roland54

Pro

Genesis one is often contradicted, for example big bang and evolution, also carbon dating and red shift. These contradictions give a separate timescale from the biblical, so is the bible inaccurate or are these contradictions even less accurate still ? The biblical account is finite and describes existence before the creation and gives a finite timescale. the biblical seven days are more realistic than appearing from nothing or an ongoing ever existence. Genesis gives us a preview of the revelation amen with a beginning.
What is your view of the comparative realism of the genesis or secular explanations?
18Karl

Con

Burden of Proof Issues: The BoP lies entirely on the opposition to prove as his claims are unscientific, and according to Bertrand Rusell, the one who makes an unscientific claim must always have the Philosophical Burden of Proof.

Definitions:

True:

Objection One: YEC Stance

With this said, let us look at the opposition's points in detailed; he is taking the Young Earth Creation stance, and he even talks about how the universe is necessarily finite, a very unscientific claim that shall be proven, empirically and rationally, in the following rounds. The YEC (Young Earth Creationism) stance is based upon the fundamental postulates that "man" was created by an all-good, omnipotent and omniscient "God" who exists, as a person, apparently.

More on the YEC stance; accordingly to measurments from ancient Jewish texts, it was assumed that Christianity believed that the earth was around 6,000 years old. That man, who developed from "God's will" did not originate out of any other animals, and was created in the shadow of God, is a wholly unempirical statement. There is one ongoing experiment, that seems to validate the claims of evolution, and how man could have evolved from a single cell bacteria, to a perfect human being.

Commonly called the "Russian Fox Experiment" this experiment attempted to show that qualities from a mother and a father are often mixed together, and through this process of quasi-natural quasi-selective breeding, characteristic traits of foxes were indeed explored. The foxes were divided into two groups; group one were aggressive, whilst group two were passive foxes. The passive foxes kept this characteristic throughout the experiment, and the same could be said about aggressive foxes; in fact, the experiment gave rise to a domesticated form of red morphs, which seems to affirm evolution and the theory of natural selection.

Objection Two: The Universe and Finity

The Universe is necessarily infinite, accordingly to calculations on Natural Philosophy by Sir Isaac Newton and the deductions of Baruch Spinoza. After observing that stars do not attract each others, albeit they have polar poles and polar poles attract with other polar poles, it must be said that something else must have been pulling negative poles away from the positive ones. This gave rise to the hypothesis, which seems only true to me, that the universe is infinite.

Let us take this to prove the universe's absolute infinity; the universe is a substance (philosophical substance, something that can be conceived only by itself, and not by something else) and all substances are necessarily infinite. Firstly, let one discuss why the universe is a substance; the universe, firstly, can only be understood by studying itself. In fact, our conceptions of "extrauniversal" comes from what used to exist, millions of year ago, as albeit light travels at a fast rate, the distance is "far" so to say.

With this said, proving all substances to be infinite shall be the next considerations. After affirming that two substances have nothing in particularly the same manner, for them doing so would transfer them into modes/attributes, which would need another substance to conceive, then a substance is either finite or infinite. But a substance cannot be finite, for it would have the same nature to be limited, and necessarily finite, but this substance does not exist. Something is either finite or infinite; if finity is not a matter, not a attribute or mode of existence, and intuitive representations, then the human timescale cannot be applied to intuitive representations.

The Bible's attempts to present humanity, and ultimately, time, in a period of 7-days (yom) scales are, as proven, refutable via science and rational deduction.

Objection Three: Realism Factor of the Bible

The Bible's teachings are contradictory; let us first take this quote by Epicurus. Why does evil exist, if God is all good? Is it really realistic to say that the earth was created in Seven Days, and a global flood happen? The abundance of evidence seems to disprove the previous statements. The Earth cannot be created in 7 days, for what defines day if the earth does not move around the sun; there is no definition of days henceforth, which seems to prove this account contradictory. And even if we were to take the night-to-night Hebrew-based translation, then it would even be more absurd; earth was created by an acreation from a solar nebula; i.e it attracts matter and dust from the leftover matters of the sun's creation. This is known to us through mathematical deductions done by astrophysicists being able to confirm the theory of relativity, which soon led to the deduction of all energy as coming from the sun.

Let us then now talk about God in general; it generally comes to the fact that, can a Christian prove God to an radical empiricist, who will not take any deduced arguments, as existence cannot be rationalized? Existence as an intuitive representation, and it is only through reasoning that intuitive representations arise of. One cannot prove that intuitive representations exist without any empirical evidence of its existence; sentences, human cognition and reasoning, are all implemented via sensory experience. Ideas, simple ones, are connected to form reasoning and propositions, and these ideas are often yielded via imagination, which is gained from the refinement of these cognitive functions during the childhood period. God is a complex idea; he is complex in the sense that to be able to doubt that He exists is enough to make him complex. For all complex ideas arise out of one source; simple ideas, and simple ideas, connected, are not always true. Existence and matter, two simple ideas, could be combined and confused to say that a humanoid exists underground. Simple ideas cannot be yielded, but can only be assent upon; complex ideas, in which we can divide (what does this God look like, what does he smell like, i.e all the plethora of questions surrounding God) him, and since ultimately, we can prove that the simple ideas which yields God true, we cannot prove God true.


RESOLUTION IS NEGATED





Debate Round No. 1
roland54

Pro

roland54 forfeited this round.
18Karl

Con

Extend all arguments
Debate Round No. 2
roland54

Pro

roland54 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
roland54

Pro

Thank you to the contender for replying. apologies for delayed response.
I have kept to the facts and declined the more abstract points as precision cannot always be applied.
Big bang theory asserts that a singularity began the expansion of the universe. if it began with a singularity the force and distance of the emanations would be finite ( as with T.N.T.) any explosion is limited to a finite range.
On the fourth day the creation of the sun, moon and stars. the stars for days and for years. the clear meaning is that years began with the introduction of the sun.
I would be interested to hear your answer to these two points, plus What came before the big bang if there was a big bang and not an eternally recurring universe ? Relativity refers to a space-time continuum. What do you consider the meaning ?
18Karl

Con

The opposition has done nohting to affirm the resolution. He begs the question. With this said, I shall briefly reply to his absurd analogies and his weird questions.

On the Big Bang and TNT

TNT is a result of a chemical reaction, whilst the Big Bang is a result of quantum flunctuations. Henceforth, it would be impossible to say that since TNT is "finite" the Big Bang is necessarily finite, because they both have different causations, and apparently, different effects too. Apart from this, I am not talking about the Big Bang, but the universe here. The opposition has done nothing to refute what I have presented.

On the Meaning of Life

I believe the meaning of life is not a scientific question; it attempts to investigate the nature of this thing called life, and is a philosophical investigation, not a scientific one. For science investigates the a posteriori but not the a priori. Apart from this, it investigates synthetical a posteriori statements. For example, evolution is a posteriori because it depends on evidence, whilst synthetic a priori quality of the "derivations of truths" are not a object of scientific study yet.

Apart from this, this question does not disprove the resolution at all.

The resolution remains negated. The BoP again lies upon the opposition.
Debate Round No. 4
roland54

Pro

roland54 forfeited this round.
18Karl

Con

#GG #NO-RE
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Geneses does not tell us how old the earth is. That is not important. It tells us when and how man appeared.And how he fell beneath his first estate.And God's plan to reestablish man to his proper place in creation before he fell.Sons and daughters of God.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
roland5418KarlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
roland5418KarlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture