The Instigator
Gonzosvita
Con (against)
The Contender
Lazarous
Pro (for)

Does the Satan of the Bible exist?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Gonzosvita has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 239 times Debate No: 122726
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Gonzosvita

Con

I chose this topic for one reason; it is a topic that is not discussed enough. As a former Christian I wrestled with the notion of Satan. Satan is portrayed as the bad guy. The arch nemesis if you will, Of God, Jesus, And their followers. As a Christian child I was instructed that particular types of music were "inspired by Satan", Or that "Harry Potter" books lead to Satan worship. When I was a believer I was always on the lookout for evil things, But my focus was on objects, World leaders, Political ideologies etc.

Granted, This is my personal experience, But it is not unlike many former believers I have spoken with. The arguments against "Harry Potter", Often focused on the imagery of witchcraft. As though we haven"t already lived through the Salem witch trials in the U. S. Today, Christians know that witches are not real (or at least most of them know). Still, We have Christian groups and leaders condemning CHILDRENS BOOKS. The assertion being Satan will infiltrate our youth through a blatantly fictional fantasy which was beautifully written I might add.

Satan is the curator of all that is bad in this world according to many Christians. Some argue that Satan was actually banished to hell, But he commands an army of demons that roam the Earth.

Considering the credit given to Satan, (or demons), For terrible happenings around the globe, Should we have a reputable body of evidence to support such a claim by now? I would say absolutely yes we should! Where is the evidence to support the claims? Because if we are being honest with one another, Claims are useless with evidence. Let"s not worry about the claims today, Please let"s focus on the evidence.
First, Let"s try to figure out how we would detect a demon on Earth? What do we know about demon claims? They usually come in the form of human possession, Or mysterious occurrences.

Human possessions have been reported across most religions, They include a bad spirit or demon entering the body of a victim and forcing the victim perform terrible acts" or just thrash about violently, Saying somewhat nasty things.

Now, You could say that possessions are evidence in and of themselves, But hold on a second. How can we confirm who, What, Or why the perpetrator is, And what is their motive? How can we confirm that the person being possessed is not faking it? How can we confirm the person being possessed is not stricken with a diagnosable sickness? Well" There are in fact ways we can gather more data, Which might lead to more questions, But let"s all be honest with ourselves here. The data, And evidence gathered about demons is next to zilch. There is very little information on these dastardly creatures. What we do seem to know is that they are as elusive as sasquatch. They are as powerful as God. They are undetectable, Outside of possession. We cannot catch them. We cannot determine how they live, What sustains them, What kills them, What makes them sick, Etc. And so on. We cannot even come up with an accepted classification for them. How can we determine if it"s a demon possession, Or of Satan himself?

Now, My opponent may ignore the topic and argue the existence of some God. They may approach this with "Christian Science", Which is often flawed or counter to mainstream collegiate science. I will gladly hear them out. I will accept and read all sources presented, Time permitting. I really want to have an honest and open debate about this subject.

I will yield the remainder of my lines for the rebuttal, But I do want t leave you with this. How do we distinguish acts of Demons from acts of God? Or could it be that neither exist?

Thank you.
Lazarous

Pro

First I would like to explain some limitations in our ability to study this specific topic. Since daemons, The devil, And God are spiritual they are outside the realms of science. This makes them very hard to study. Most forms of evidence are anecdotal, Or experiential. Frequently the supernatural is faked and since any real affects on the world caused by the supernatural generally defy known science they are always viewed with a high level of skepticism.

I am unclear whether your position is that the supernatural does not exist, God and satin does not exist, Or just satin does not exist. If you could please clarify your position here I think that would be helpful. Also, Do you believe in absolute good and evil? If so how do we identify what is good and what is evil?

Since the supernatural isn"t scientifically testable how can we provide evidence for it? I would suggest that we test the Bible to see if it is reliable in all elements that are testable. It has proven itself to be very accurate historically and scientifically (I am prepared to defend these claims at your discretion). It is only after establishing that a document like the Bible is reliable in what we can test that we can use it as evidence to defend what we can"t test.

I do have anecdotal evidence from personal experiences to support the existence of the supernatural.
1. I had a personal experience where a family member overdosed on medication. There were two witnesses that can verify this. The overdose was confirmed to be lethal by the doctors. After the doctors ran test they could not find any sign of the overdose.
2. One of my family members saw an angel.
3. One of my friends witnessed multiple demonic visions. Reflections talking to her, Hangings in the yard that never happened ect.
Granted all of these are anecdotal so in order for this to represent evidence you would have to take my word for it.

The movie The Conjuring relates a true story of Ed and Lorraine Warren who are exorcists from the Catholic Church. The actually were able to get some documentation in recording photos ect. That support their supernatural experiences.

To clarify my position, I don"t believe that all bad things come from the devil. For example the Bible says that we have a sinful nature. This basically means that we don"t need the devil"s help to commit acts of evil. Also, Although the devil and all his daemons will be condemned to hell in the end times I don"t believe the Bible supports the position that the devil is already there.

To address some of your earlier points, Harry Potter has been demonized by many Christians because it contains elements of witchcraft. The author studies witchcraft to find inspiration for her books. Movies like The Conjuring provide humbling illustrations of why which craft is not to be plaid with.

Witches have been fanaticized but originally the term witch simply referred to someone who practiced witchcraft (worshiped the devil). So witches do exist but not in the Hollywood context.

Finally "How do we distinguish acts of Demons from acts of God? " In the Bible God gives many instructions in how we are to act. We can use these instructions as the reference book to identify what reflects God"s commandments and what is against God"s instructions. A basic example of this would be the second commandment that God gives to hold no other God"s before him. Therefore, I would say that the worship of any other physical item or deity would be from the devil or from the sinful nature of man.

I apologies for not providing a more focused response. I will leave it to you to specify where you would like to focus discussions and hope to provide a more focused and comprehensive response next time.
Debate Round No. 1
Gonzosvita

Con

Just a little upkeep here:

At this stage I am going to start each rebuttal by quoting Pro"s counterpoints as a matter of accuracy. I will comment on each quote as necessary.

Then I will conclude with a few more lines.

1. "The devil, And God are spiritual they are outside the realms of science. "

This is where the root of today"s debate should live. In Pro"s second sentence as shown in (quote 1) above. The quote puts Pro in a precarious position. If god AND the devil are supernatural. This means that there"s not just one god but two in the Christian religion. But, If Ghod is outside of space and time, And the devil is not. Then where is that slimy bastard? If demons are detectable then they are not supernatural, But if they are supernatural then they are all gods. Every flea bitten demon is a god or god like.

Another answer to this problem I have heard in the past was that, "god, Jesus, The devil, Are all the same entity. This negates all apologetics on Biblical morality since God would be doing Satan"s dirty work. Pro"s comment opens a gaping hole in the side of the structure of the bible.

This forces many Christian apologists to grant that demons do not roam the Earth. This is where we have another issue. If demons are detectable in any way, Then some aspect of their interaction in our presence MUST be manipulating the natural world. How can I assert this?

Anything that interacts with the natural world in a way that humans can experience must be in some way natural. If this is the case then science can absolutely measure it and derive repeatable data from it.

What all this means is that we can test the supernatural when it interacts with the natural world. Think about it. If god parts the Red sea, We can observe the natural world interacting with the supernatural. That means that these two plains of existence would be intertwined like a double helix. If, Any of this were true modern science would at least be able to find a single confirmatory fact about demons, Or the supernatural.

Let me give you an anecdote with some actual value.

The Higgs boson is a particle that was discovered in 2012 at CERN using a particle accelerator. In 1964 Peter Higgs et al theorized the Higgs Field which included the Higgs boson particle, Or sometimes referred to as "the god particle". The technology to test for the Higgs field was decades away at the time. Not only is this an incredibly astonishing prediction, But the language it was written in was clear, Accurate, And verbose, Which is vastly more than you can say for the Bible.
With modern science we can detect more things we can"t see than things we can. More light exists in wavelengths we can"t see than we can see. We are outnumbered by microscopic life by several orders of magnitude.

Many scientific discoveries start as predictions based upon available knowledge and tireless experimentation. The planet Neptune was discovered in 1846. Johann Galle et al used differential equations to work out that there was an extra tug on Uranus which indicated a large celestial body that had not be observed yet. With math and math alone, They pointed their telescopes to a spot the size of a pinprick on a movie screen, And observed Neptune.

To think that scientists couldn't"t come up with quantifiable data when observing a person thrashing about and saying nasty things. If we can observe the cosmic radio background then we can make sense of the supernatural manipulating the natural.

Higgs, Neptune these are anecdotes that mean something. Not only are they testable, They are repeatable too. An assertion that you know someone that thinks they saw an angel is a terrible anecdote. Why? Well to start, What the hell is an angel? How do we classify an angel? Since the only information about angels exists in texts like the bible and they fail to explain anything useful about the being how are we ever going to be able to confirm an angel sighting? There is more information about animals that no longer exist than there is for angles. If angels can be seen by humans then they can be tested by science. Since there are no scientific papers on angel sightings, I can confidently say there is no quantifiable evidence for the existence of angels. The same of course goes for demons, And gods for that matter.

2. "I am unclear whether your position is that the supernatural does not exist, God and satin does not exist, Or just satin does not exist. "

I am arguing that Satan does not exist as the topic suggests. With that of course comes quite a lot of baggage. Satan is contingent upon the Christian god, But it could be argued god is not contingent on Satan. This only pertains to Christianity of course, And possibly Islam and Judaism. Outside of the Abrahamic religions Satan takes on other properties I"m not interested in discussing at this point.

The point being, If Satan/demons do not exist then the Bible becomes almost entirely meaningless. If Satan/ demons do exist then they have to be testable if they are not supernatural. If they are supernatural then they are really demigods which makes Christianity polytheistic.

In any way you look at this you must make a concession that could compromise the current understanding of Christianity.

3. "Do you believe in absolute good and evil? "

I don"t see how this pertains to the current topic, But I am a moral relativist. I can back this up with evidence.

4. "I would suggest that we test the Bible to see if it is reliable in all elements that are testable. "

The bible is not reliable. There are many contradictions in the bible which means it has errors. If you are reading a recipe that tells you to add sugar and on the next line it says do not add sugar how likely are you to keep using that recipe. What if it is a recipe book, And yes some recipes are beautifully written, But others are clearly wrong. How likely are you to give the entire recipe book to your friends? If the bible was reliable, You wouldn"t have thousands of Christian offshoots, All interpreting the book however they choose to.

5. "The movie The Conjuring relates a true story of Ed and Lorraine Warren who are exorcists from the Catholic Church. "

On Wikipedia The page for "The Conjuring", Out of 107 individual sources I could not find a single source pointing to actual evidence of this happening. I don"t think Hollywood films are great sources of human knowledge, Nor are they ever going to be accepted among scientists as confirmatory evidence.

6. "To address some of your earlier points, Harry Potter has been demonized by many Christians because it contains elements of witchcraft. "

Witchcraft is not real. Magic is not real. People don"t fly on brooms, Or turn into werewolves, Or bats. There are no wizards either. If there were I promise you we would know everything about them. Facebook would have Gigs worth of data on any monsters in society, Google too, Just so they could sell ad space. The point is, What the bible calls witchcraft and magic is nothing compared to the discoveries of science. Jesus couldn"t call the people on a cell phone. Witches couldn"t microwave a hot pocket. Satan can"t translate for me, But guess what, Google can.

Conclusion:

If you want to believe that the supernatural is not detectable, (if it exists at all), Then you have to believe that the supernatural does not interact with the natural. If Satan or demons interact with us, Then they are detectable. If they are not detectable then they must have enough god like attributes to make them undetectable.

Since we cannot detect god, Or satan, Or demons, If they exist at all we cannot determine the difference between an act of god or satan, Or natural occurrence.

Please don"t get me wrong here. I am not saying the supernatural does not exist. I am simply saying If it exists and interacts with the natural in any way, No matter how random, We could detect it and build entire university programs around it like the detection of neutrinos out of OSU.
Lazarous

Pro

1. "If demons are detectable then they are not supernatural, But if they are supernatural then they are all gods. "
To say that all supernatural entities are God"s is not supportable with evidence. Job 1:6 says, "One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, And Satan also came with them. " God then says to the devil, ""Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, A man who fears God and shuns evil"" (Job 1:7). This clarifies that there is objective good and evil, And God reveres what is good. The devil then requests permission to afflict Job. This clarifies the distain the devil has for what is good and what pleases God. God"s responds, ""Very well, Then, Everything he has is in your hands, But on the man himself do not lay a finger"" (Job 1:12). This makes it clear that even Satin requires God"s permission.

The super natural simply lives outside the realms of nature. This does not define the authority each supernatural entity does or does not possess.

I do not claim that "god, Jesus, The devil, Are all the same entity. " The Bible makes it crystal clear that they are not. Daemons do roam the earth, And, In some cases, We can see the affects they have on nature. I made this clear in my last comment where I relate three anecdotal experiences I, Family, And a friend have had. I also referenced Ed and Lorraine Warren"s work as exorcists. They have physical documentation of the affect that supernatural entities have had on the physical. The reason science can"t draw any conclusions about the supernatural is because science is what is observable, Testable, And repeatable. The affects spirits have on the physical world is not testable or repeatable. Furthermore, Since the supernatural generally overrides the natural such supernatural events contradict known science.

The Higgs Field is philosophy based upon elements of science. This study does not test the supernatural so I"m not sure why you brought it up. Also, Although the Bible is not clear on all things, It is very clear in many respects including many elements surrounding the supernatural. To the extent that we can test it historically, The Bible has also proven its historical accuracy. When a document proves itself accurate in what we can test, It demonstrates credibility.

2. "The bible is not reliable"
Please provide examples to back this claim up. Regrettably, Many Christians don"t even know much about what the Bible says so pointing to the inconsistency in Christians viewpoints does not constitute evidence that the Bible is inconsistent.

3. "On Wikipedia The page for "The Conjuring", Out of 107 individual sources I could not find a single source pointing to actual evidence of this happening. "
So you consider Wikipedia a high source of information eh. I simply reference the movie because this is the most likely way you would be familiar with them. Also, The movies include actual recordings and photos captured by the team at the end. I do not claim that this is highly empirical evidence.

4. "Witchcraft is not real. "
Really, Were going to do this again. People do worship the devil. This is Witchcraft. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines, "Witchcraft, The exercise or invocation of alleged supernaturalpowers to control people or events, Practices typically involving sorceryor magic. Although defined differently in disparate historical and cultural contexts, Witchcraft has often been seen, Especially in the West, As the work of crones who meet secretly at night, Indulge in cannibalism and orgiastic rites with the Devil, And perform black magic. " The brooms and spells are primarily Hollywood mumbo jumbo but people to sacrifice animals to the devil, Call on daemons, Pray to the devil etc.

5. Do you believe in absolute good and evil?
Here is why this is relevant: If you don"t believe in the spiritual realm then you believe that Man is the highest power. If Man is the highest power then he is God. If man is God he sets his own rules, And therefore he can do no wrong.

I gather that you are inclined to the atheistic world view. You will have to clarify this for me. If so, You should follow this world view to its logical end. If we are random accidents and purely mortal, Then all that is, Is temporal. No matter what we do the universe came from dust and will return to dust, Meaning that, Life is completely meaningless. The universe will ultimately return to dust as if we had never existed.

As an atheist there is no justification for morals of any kind. The ultimate meaning of life under this world view is enjoy it while it lasts. Stalin and Hitler did no wrong. In fact if anything is right they did it for they exercised their power to eliminate the week and speed up the process of evolution.

I put it to you, How can you justify relative morality?
Debate Round No. 2
Gonzosvita

Con

"To say that all supernatural entities are God"s is not supportable with evidence"

I misspoke. I am not saying they exist and therefore they are gods. I"m saying that according to Christian doctrine they perform actions that are indistinguishable from one another. This ambiguity is important to note. Since you brought up Job, I will give you a for instance using Job.

If Job"s experience were to happen today to me. I would not be able to tell if Satan was causing me harm, God, Or some other means. Job was used as a wager between a supposed loving god and a his evil creation Satan.

Furthermore, I can"t provide evidence for something that does not exist. If you were to ask me to provide evidence for trumpet playing gnomes that live on the moon I could give you a whole bunch of arguments for their existence, But Since we both know they don"t exist, Evidence would be null. Ironically that is the case for demons, And angels.

" (Job 1:7). This clarifies that there is objective good and evil, And God reveres what is good. "

Objective good and evil can actually be affirmed if it were true. If throwing stones at disobedient children until they are dead was still practiced then I would have to grant you that objective morality exists.

Objective morality is an all or nothing claim. Just as subjective morality is. If morality can change or evolve in the slightest way then no it is not objective. I am a moral relativist, But I do acknowledge some quasi moral absolutes. For instance, It is almost universally accepted that stealing is wrong in any form. But! What if your family is starving? Murder is wrong, But what about when that person is about to do more harm than you would? What if I murdered Jeffery Dahmer before he killed all of the people that he did? It would seem that I was wrong in doing so, But what about the lives I saved by killing one sick man?

I can"t think of a single excuse for sexually assaulting children, But the Catholic church seems to have no problem with that. I guarantee you that the priests give the children some greater good or moral equivalent excuse for why they shouldn"t say anything either.
Tell me how is it moral to allow a priest into heaven for assaulting just because he said sorry to god, But the child will possibly live a life of desperation which could lead them away from Christianity and ultimately hell?

"The super natural simply lives outside the realms of nature. This does not define the authority each supernatural entity does or does not possess. " -Pro

The following is a quote from https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/god, Definition 2. Definition 1 is about a monotheistic god, 2 refers to polytheistic views.

A is God defined as - "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship"

Worship can mean reverence or respect, And respect means to give attention to. The Bible gives a lot of attention/respect to Satan, And so do most Christian sects.

Also, A being that has "more than natural attribute", Meaning Satan, Angels, Mary, Saints, Elijah etc. Christianity is polytheistic. Worship does not mean you love the thing it just means you respect it. The fact that Harry Potter books are held as a pathway to Satan means Christians Respect Satan"s power and therefore worship him/it/her/whatever.

"I also referenced Ed and Lorraine Warren"s work as exorcists. They have physical documentation of the affect that supernatural entities have had on the physical. "

Where? Where is this evidence?

"The reason science can"t draw any conclusions about the supernatural is because science is what is observable, Testable, And repeatable. "

The example I gave in the previous round about how the Higgs field was discovered means that the object was not observable, Testable, Or repeatable, Yet 60 years later the technology caught up to discover the God particle.
As mentioned before Possessions supposedly happen all the time, Which means the supernatural is manifesting in the natural which means it is absolutely testable, Observable, And repeatable, Yet there is no evidence that possessions are real.

"Since the supernatural generally overrides the natural such supernatural events contradict known science. "

If the supernatural is undetectable, Then how are you even talking about something that is not detectable?

"The Higgs Field is philosophy based upon elements of science. "

The Higgs field is not philosophy based. It is empirically confirmed, And reconfirmed at this point it is a full fledged theory.

"This study does not test the supernatural so I"m not sure why you brought it up. "

I brought up the Higgs Field because it was a prediction of science about a sub atomic particle. Meaning Science make predictions that are far more important for humanity than a child being born, And it can do it with accuracy far beyond that of the bible.

"The Bible has also proven its historical accuracy. When a document proves itself accurate in what we can test, It demonstrates credibility"

By this logic The Iliad and the Odyssey confirm Greek mythology since it is very historically accurate, And it predates Christianity by over 1000 years. In fact Heinrich Schliemann found Hadrian"s wall and subsequently the city of Troy based on the Iliad. Yet a key "historical", Account in the bible called the "Great Flood" has been proven to be historically inaccurate. This is not to say the Bible is inaccurate on all accounts, But it is inaccurate, (btw here is an example of how the bible is not reliable).

"Many Christians don"t even know much about what the Bible says so pointing to the inconsistency in Christians viewpoints does not constitute evidence that the Bible is inconsistent. "

You prove my point here. What flavor of Christian are you? I was Lutheran, But they all have there own quirks. There are more viewpoints than there are chapters in the Bible, So tell me what is the correct viewpoint? Is Jesus like God, Or is he God. Was Mary a virgin? Is Genesis literal? Is the old testament still valid today or not? Do Angles have wings? Is the Earth the center of the universe? The problem is that there are too many viewpoints, Which are only partially accounted for in the 1000+ sects. I was told that if I was not a "born again christian", I would go to hell by my father, And my mother said all I had to do was accept that jesus died and rose again. Others claim you have to speak in jibberish at a church. Some say you have to dance with poisonous snakes. I mean seriously dude if you want to, We can go down this rabbit hole, But I promise you it is nearly bottomless.

"So you consider Wikipedia a high source of information eh. I simply reference the movie because this is the most likely way you would be familiar with them. "

I trust Wikipedia over Hollywood for one major reason. They list sources at the bottom of each page. Sources lead to more sources, And this leads to more information. Where are the sources listed in a Hollywood film? I agree though Wikipedia is not the end all be all for information, But it sure is a better start than movie designed to sell theater tickets. Wikipedia functions purely off of donations.

"Really, Were going to do this again. People do worship the devil. This is Witchcraft. " James Randy has offered 1 million dollars to anyone that can perform magic, Witchcraft, Sorcery, Telekinesis, Psychic abilities you name it, He has many contestants, But no winners. Https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge
This is just one example that can be used as evidence that witchcraft does not exist in the sense that people can do things that are supernatural. Anyone can worship anything they want and you can call it witchcraft if you wish, But worshiping things does not make them real. If that were the case then Krishna would exist by that logic.

"If you don"t believe in the spiritual realm then you believe that Man is the highest power. "

This is a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to support your claim that a supernatural parallel universe exists next to the natural one we can experience. I also, Do not and cannot claim humans are the "highest power". What is power? I can tell you gravity is a higher power than I am since I can"t fly away from it. I don"t know what a high power is in the context of what is natural an observable.

"If man is God he sets his own rules, And therefore he can do no wrong. "

This implies absolute free will. I didn"t choose my parents, Where I was born, Or what sex I was, (thought the latter is changing). I also didn"t choose what year I would be born. All of these affect my will in life. I follow the rules of the society I find myself in. If I was born a woman in Sadia Arabia, I would have a Hijab on and would be fighting for my right to drive.
In the United States we have two parallel legal systems. We have common law, And we have the federal system. Both systems have evolved and we can trace their evolution through history. Some of that evolution can be attributed to Christianity, Not much, But some. The Magna Carta, The Code of Hammurabi, English Common law, And the U. S. Constitution, Which was borrowed from one of the 13 colonies. The evolution of our legal system is primarily derived from disputes and precedent. If you have ever studied the supreme court system you will understand how important precedent is, And why it is held with respect. Aside from swearing in, The bible, Or god are rarely invoked in the course of legal discourse.

If you can produce verifiable evidence for the existence of Satan, I will be forced to accept the existence of God and Jesus.
I promise you I would rather live forever. I am not an atheist because I hate your god. I am atheist because I have never seen anything to warrant my belief.

I ran out of words in this round.
Lazarous

Pro

"If you were to ask me to provide evidence for trumpet playing gnomes that live on the moon I could give you a whole bunch of arguments for their existence, But Since we both know they don"t exist, Evidence would be null. " " Pro.

You may not believe in trumpet playing gnomes but as an atheist I would assume that you do believe in evolution. Although evidence can be used to provide a partial model for both trumpet playing gnomes and evolution they both fail at curtail points deeming them dysfunctional. For example:

Evolution defies scientific laws:
1. The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Energy: These laws states that the total energy of a closed system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another (for example heat can be turned into motion, Motion into light etc. ), But energy cannot be created or destroyed. In order for the big bang to be true this law must be false.
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics: This law says that everything deteriorates over time. It does not gain complexity as required for evolution to occur.
3. Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum: This law says that if an object is spinning in one direction and a portion of an object flies off, That fragment will also continue spinning in the same direction. The big bang holds that a very small and dense point in space was spinning very fast when it exploded. If this is true than all objects in the universe should be spinning in the same direction.
4. Law of Biogenesis: This law says that life only comes from life. Clearly in order for evolution to be true life would have to come from nonlife, Resulting a direct contradistinction to this scientific law. Law of Biogenesis: This law says that life only comes from life.

In order for evolution to be true all these scientific laws with their extensive testing would have to be false. Scientific laws gain their status through being extensively tested to be true over a long period of time. If one acceptation to a scientific law is found that law is discredited and thrown out. Evolution defies known science.

"Objective good and evil can actually be affirmed if it were true. " - Pro.
Relative morality is logically contradictory. Hitler found it morally acceptable to annihilate what he considered the inferior human races. Dietrich Bonheoffer found it his moral obligation to stop Hitler at all cost (it ultimately cost him his life). To say that both of these people were right would defy logic.

Merriam-Webster defines relativism as, "a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them. " This brings up two questions:
1. If you believe in relative morality then, You believe we are both right provided we are both following our convictions. Which begs the question, Why are you saying I"m wrong? If values are relative then how infact can you say anyone is wrong?
2. If through this reasoning you believe that I am right, Then you believe that my belief that you are wrong is also right. That means that you believe that you are wrong, Go figure.

Logic does not allow for moral relativism. Here is another example: There is something called the "hard atheist". This bread of atheist is actually the most rational among atheists because he follows the implications of atheism to their final logical conclusions. Reasoning goes something like this:
1. If there is no God then there is no eternity. All that exists is temporal. The cosmos is all that is was and ever will be.
2. Since man"s evolutionary trip to the top is based off of survival of the fittest then death is frequently a consequence of the inadequacy of the particular organism and the vanquishing of other organisms proves superiority.
3. Man is justified in doing anything he can get away with. This again simply demonstrates a superior state, And, If there is value in anything, There is value in promoting the superior races thorough stomping out the inferior races.
4. Equality is a lie used by the week to band together and overthrow the strong. Such a philosophy is impeding man"s trip to their super human state. Therefore the concept of equality is to be loathed.
5. Morality is a lie that makes the strong week. An organism capable of dominating becomes docile under a moral code and then gets stomped out by those who don"t have a moral code.
6. But, No matter what you do, How much you speed up the evolution of the super human race, How fast you develop technology ect. , You are still faced with the fact that all things came from dust and will return to dust. This means that no matter how "good" a person you are, No matter how many books you right, And no matter how many lives you save everything you worked for will return to dust as if you, Earth, And even the universe as we know it had never existed. Your net affect on eternity is 0.
7. If your actions ultimately mean nothing then all things are meaningless. If all things are ultimately meaningless then of what use is morality anyway.

"If throwing stones at disobedient children until they are dead was still practiced then I would have to grant you that objective morality exists. " " Pro.

I gather you are trying to say that since laws and customs change over time and between cultures then there is moral relativism. This confusion is created by a lack of defined terms so I will clarify:
1. If I give a thumb up sign it will not be received well in all cultures. This is because the meaning of this gesture is interpreted differently in different cultures. In some cultures it is a great insult and in others it is considered a complement. For example, The reason giving a thumb up may be considered immoral is because it could represent disrespect toward the person it is directed at. If the intention of the gesture is to be respectful then the person performing the gesture did no wrong yet they may offend someone. Our moral obligation to respect each other as humans is universal and absolute.
2. If we look at the legal code of different cultures laws which are to be considered beneficial are directed at establishing justice. Justice is the moral absolute here. Some well developed laws establish justice very well. All laws fall on a sliding scale falling somewhere between administering justice and administering injustice. This means that some cultures laws are more morally upright than others.
3. Also, Some customs and laws are amoral, Meaning that they nether support nor deny an absolute moral truth.

"I can"t think of a single excuse for sexually assaulting children, But the Catholic church seems to have no problem with that. " - Pro.

It sounds like you are advocating for moral absolutes here. Your right, It is absolutely true that there is no excuse that would morally justify doing this. First of all Christians sin too. Secondly, Some Christians ignore, Rewrite, Or simply don"t know what the Bible says. Finally, Some people claim to be Christian but in fact are not.
When speaking to people who steel to feed their family, Yes stealing is always wrong. Starving is not morally wrong assuming there is no moral alternative. I empathize with anyone who finds themselves in this situation and chooses to steal, But it is still wrong. In the case of killing someone who is about to create great damage, This is to be morally revered assuming that there were no other reasonable alternatives. Killing in self defense or defense of others is not murder. The Bible makes it clear that in all cultures he ordains people to administer justice on his behalf, And if you have to shoot an active shooter at the mall you are working as God"s agent of justice, Whether you like it or not. However, Killing whom you please on the theory that they may kill someone some day is not justified, But it is ironic.

"Respect means to give attention to" The fact that Harry Potter books are held as a pathway to Satan means Christians Respect Satan"s power and therefore worship him/it/her/whatever. " " Pro.

Attention does not equal respect. If the news covers an active shooting they are not respecting or worshiping the shooter. Many people feared Hitler"s power, And most of them did and still do hold him with the highest disdain.

"As mentioned before Possessions supposedly happen all the time, Which means the supernatural is manifesting in the natural which means it is absolutely testable, Observable, And repeatable, Yet there is no evidence that possessions are real. "

"This implies absolute free will. I didn"t choose my parents, Where I was born, Or what sex I was, (thought the latter is changing). " - Pro.

Since statement is manipulating the misunderstandings surrounding free will. Free will, As used here, Is the ability to act at one"s own discretion. This is being confused with power. You have the free will to decide what your will is, You do not necessarily have the power to carry your will out. If you did:
1. You would have to be omnipresent, Omniscient, And omnipotent.
2. This would allow you to control everything absolutely as you please.
3. Under your original definition of free will there could not be two (or more) god"s. Under your definition, If one had dominion over the other than only one of them has absolute power. And, Under your definition, If neither of them had dominion over each other than nether of them are gods.
4. This would also mean that in order for god to give you free will he could only give one person free will. This would also result in God no longer having free will and therefore no longer being God.
Defining free will as being equal to absolute power over all things is absurd.

Getting back to my initial claim that, "If man is God he sets his own rules, And therefore he can do no wrong. " I was referring to man setting his own rules in a moral sense. From any world view it only follows that the highest power in the universe defines what is right and wrong. Gravity definitely does not poses this ability.

Regrettably I have ran out of space.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Lazarous 3 weeks ago
Lazarous
I had the same problem. I think it is rejecting your comment because of a link or wording etc. It refused one of my responses many times. After modification I was able to get it accepted.
Posted by Gonzosvita 3 weeks ago
Gonzosvita
I'm not sure what is happening, But every time I submit my argument it appears as though it was accepted and posted. When I come back the next day to see if there is a rebuttal I shows that I have not posted anything? Any ideas on why this is the case?
Posted by Lazarous 4 weeks ago
Lazarous
Friendly chap. Love to see how all the loud mouth atheists claim to be divinely intellectual while providing no evidence. I'd love to debate you some time.
Posted by zapshe 4 weeks ago
zapshe
"I came to my worldview through studying the evidence. I study science, Logic, History, And philosophy. . . I am a young earth creationists"

I think you misspoke. You mean to say you study fallacies, Bias sources, Close-mindedness, And the art of closing your eyes to facts when it doesn't suit you.

"Much of the dirt put upon the Bible originates from people who claim to know the Bible but in fact don't. "

Probably people like you.
Posted by Lazarous 4 weeks ago
Lazarous
Like revorw2539 I came to my worldview through studying the evidence. I study science, Logic, History, And philosophy and arrived at the world view where the preponderance of all evidences converge. I am a young earth creationists and don't apologies for it. Much of the dirt put upon the Bible originates from people who claim to know the Bible but in fact don't.
Posted by trevorw2539 1 month ago
trevorw2539
Satan is only a devil in Christianity. In Judaism he is Jahweh's servant. He tests men's faith with God's authority - as with the fictional story of Job. Christianity turned him into 'god's' enemy. The supposed temptation of Jesus is in line with Judaism. Job passed the test. So does Jesus in the gospels. I'm an atheist now having studied the Bible against ancient beliefs, Cultures, Mesopotamian history and Judaism.
Posted by Jukebox101 1 month ago
Jukebox101
Intersting topic.
Posted by zapshe 1 month ago
zapshe
If your atheist and know the Bible isn't even remotely reflective of reality, You know Satan doesn't exist.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.