The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sillydebater
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Extra credit! Think of at least 10 reasons why god would not use text as a form of communication?

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 1 vote the winner is...
sillydebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 619 times Debate No: 120359
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

backwardseden

Pro

There are at least 50 reasons why the god of the bible would not use text, Namely the croaking bible, As a form of communication, Transmission, Advertisement, Correspondence, Transference etc, Or whatever you wish to call it, Not ever, Not for any reason as text is the worst form of communication, Transmission, Advertisement, Correspondence, Transference etc possible for a god to croak to his chosen people. Let's see if you can think of at least 10 of them.

NOTHING is established in scripture so everybody can get it wrong as there have been 0 updates in at least 2, 000 years. There's no biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled, No god that has been proven, No christ that has been proven, No miracles that have been proven, No nothing. Only a god's frail superior ego god complex of characterization in which the bible is entirely about through faith of all things which is not evidence of any kind and nothing else. Everything in this bible swirls around this god's superior ego god complex and collapses entirely.
There"s translations upon translations upon translations upon translations upon copies upon copies upon copies upon copies upon dead languages upon dead languages with absolutely 0% of a chance to trace it back to the original. And there"s no original in the first place! So absolutely nobody is interpreting correctly. Not you, Not the pope, No minister, No priest, No pastor, No-bo-dy. And within those translations and copies throughout the generations, Characters and what they have said, Especially with its leading characters, Namely god and christ, Their quotes/ verses have changed over time. Oh really? Who has the right and or know how to change ANY of god"s language to update it to whatever they felt like and or to amputate it into ---their--- language? Did they consult god and or jesus to see if this was OK? Of course not. And more importantly did they get it right as an updated version to what these characters would say in this day and age, Or even back then when the translations were updated? So once again god if as stated was reasonably intelligent, In which he"s clearly not, Would ---never--- use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible because he would have certainly have foreseen all of these major faults. Oh and btw, Nobody can even prove that this god of the bible exists!

Further rounds will reveal verses that choke on themselves by mere translations, Thus the bible chokes on itself.

There will also be videos presented which will show that not only is the bible NOT evidence of any kind but will thus show that the god of the bible would in fact be pretty stupid to use text, Namely the bible as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible.

RULES:
Prove that the god of the bible would use text, Namely the bible, As a form of communication.

Be intelligent. DO NOT INVENT EXCUSES because I will know better and you will thus rightly be insulted with my brand of insults.

dsjpk5 and timmyjames are disqualified from any voting process for this debate.
sillydebater

Con

I accept, And wish backwardseden a good debate.

Although my opponent is Pro and I'm Con, Which seems backwards in this debate, As per the rules I will "Prove that the god of the bible would use text, Namely the bible, As a form of communication. "

Argument: Suppose the god of the bible communicated in some other way than the bible. Then the god would no longer be the god of the bible, But would be the god of whatever that communication was named. Or to put it another way, For the god of the bible to be the god of the bible, That god must be communicated in the bible, Which as we have established, Is text.

Thus, The god of the bible would use text, Namely the bible, To communicate, Else that god would cease to be the god of the bible.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Its not hard. Really. Its not.
RULES:
"Prove that the god of the bible would use text, Namely the bible, As a form of communication. "
There is no "supposing". Now if you cannot follow simpleton "rules" as thousands that I've debated with have not, Then leave. You either know, Or you don't know.

Now the headliner post does state "Extra credit! Think of at least 10 reasons why god would not use text as a form of communication? " So let's see if you can hammer away at that.

Regardless, Let's het this out of the way. . . I am correct in taking the Pro stance here because the god of the bible, In which case nobody has ever proved to exist, This storybook character would never use text, Namely the bible, Not for any reason, Not ever, The worst form of communication Transmission, Advertisement, Correspondence, Transference etc possible for a god to croak to his chosen people, Possible.

"Argument: Suppose the god of the bible communicated in some other way than the bible. Then the god would no longer be the god of the bible, " OK right off the bat, Guess what? It is stated "Be intelligent. DO NOT INVENT EXCUSES. . . " That is EXACTLY what you just did and went right off into the deep end of the pond scum into a useless territory. I mean do you bore yourself to sleep during a nuclear war? WRONG answer. The god of the bible would still remain the god of the bible if communicated in some other way other than the bible. You cannot change this god into something completely different from what is described in the bible into what YOU might think of "whatever" this storybook character may become just because you wish it to be true in your knocked upped noggin and all you are doing is changing names. Now go back and rethink your ideals if you wish to continue with this debate.
sillydebater

Con

No made up arguments here, Just straight logic:

For the god of the bible to be the god of the bible, It must be *by definition* of the bible. If the god of the bible were not of the bible, Then it would not be the god of the bible. This proves that the god of the bible not only would use the bible, But *must* use the bible, If it is to be the god of the bible.

If this is not the truth, Then I look forward to you showing where my logic is incorrect.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Yeah it is YOUR excuse and YOUR rules. You cannot reinvent the god of the bible which is exactly what you are trying to do just to suit your wants needs and desires - especially for this debate. There's no sanctified pretzel "logic" behind it. All you are trying to do is take the god of the bible out of the equation and replant it within twists and turns of a terminology language barrier. Big whoop. Its the simple logic that 2 + 2 = 4 which is the same as 1 + 3 = 4. Its just different symbols. That doesn't work. You called it "suppose" in the previous RD. No there's no suppose". Either you know or you don't know.
"If" See you used the word "if". Case closed. This is now a dead subject. If you use this excuse again you will have effectively ended this debate because in truth you truly have no idea, None as to what you are talking about, You guess/ "suppose".
sillydebater

Con

I did not reinvent the god of the bible. In fact I have said nothing about the god of the bible except that it is the god of the bible. Do you deny the god of the bible is the god of the bible?

Also, The "If. . . Then " form of argument & consequence is a basic argument structure. For example: "If using the word "if" is enough to invalidate an argument, Then Pro's arguments in Round 1 are invalid as three "if"s are used. "

Anyway, I have presented my argument, And Pro has done nothing to disprove it except to call it dumb and insult me. Pro hasn't proven that my argument is fallacious or invalid. So it still stands.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

Let me ask you this question. . . Why are thumbnail idiots like you born every second? Right now I'm going to absolutely humiliate, Degrade, Dehumanize a smug smarta$$ like you welp, I wrung out your weary little what you thought was a snug tight fitting garter belt to noose a chocolate chip cookie at a neanderthal mating time. . . WRONG as this will soon be proved. Oh I had A LOT of fun composing this.

But first since you avoided the rules of this debate which were "RULES:
Prove that the god of the bible would use text, Namely the bible, As a form of communication", It means that you lose this debate because you as Hank Williams trying to be an Elvis impersonator (what else could it be? ), You've thus forfeited this debate and lost because you did not do as such. Darn.

"For the god of the bible to be the god of the bible, It must be *by definition* of the bible. If the god of the bible were not of the bible, Then it would not be the god of the bible. This proves that the god of the bible not only would use the bible, But *must* use the bible, . . . And for what purpose/ how would this god "use" the bible if he's in print only because after all by YOUR STATEMENT "For the god of the bible to be the god of the bible, It must be *by definition* of the bible. So how is this god of YOURS going to escape from printed formation? Is it going to be like the fantasy film The Purple Rose of Cairo where the leading man leaps from the movie screen and becomes a real person? Only here your god leaps from the printed scribbles and becomes air? I mean after all nobody has of yet to prove this god of YOURS has ever existed. And the only form that your god is not even known to exist is in storybook print form, Namely YOUR bible, Which is not evidence of any kind of YOUR god's existence. I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say.
sillydebater

Con

The existence of god is irrelevant in this debate as the rules are: "Prove that the god of the bible would use text, Namely the bible, As a form of communication. " Nowhere does it say prove that god is real or fictional. It's the same as if you had said "Prove that Gandalf of Lord of the Rings would use characters from the Lord of the Rings to save Middle Earth". Of course Gandalf would use characters from the Lord of the Rings because Gandalf is in the Lord of the Rings. It's not like he'd use characters from Star Wars or Harry Potter. In the same way, The God of the Bible uses the Bible for communicate because it's the God of the Bible, Not the God of some other source.

And, I feel sorry for you if you attack people like that in real life, As it certainly would alienate a lot of folks to be belittled like that.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
The bible imparts information not knowledge. The bible does not allow you to know god, It merely allows you to believe that you know god. A perfect god would not use information. A perfect god would give us knowledge. God can tell us anything we need to know, And if there are things we need to know, A perfectly good-god would tell us directly. Therefore evangelism is pointless, Merely a social exercise that feeds the ego of the evangelists. God doesn't need prophets such as Jesus, Muhammad, Or magical tricks such as the Resurrection, To tell the world what it wants the world to know. If it is good for us to know something, God would tell everyone instantly and clearly, Not via 3rd-party magical tricks and public relations stunts.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedensillydebaterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con an "idiot". That's poor conduct.

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