The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Is the Bible entirely true?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 742 times Debate No: 81212
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




I believe there are many flaws in the Bible and Christians in general. The Bible strictly states that you shall not kill yet many believe in abortion. Also, homogeneity is specifically stated as sinful and if a man lays with another man he should be put to death but many in the LG community are gay/bisexual/pan-sexual. Finally, you are allowed to use the Bible and other religious texts, but only to make your point stroner. Other than that anything is on the table.


I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate. Such a wonderfully relevant topic, this is -- especially in the United States and other countries where the Christian religion plays some role in the political dealings of that country.

My argument sums to this: There is reason to believe that God exists. Given this and inspecting known references to God, it is likely this is the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible claimed that the Bible was His inerrant word, therefore the Bible is true.

Yes the bible does say killing is wrong, hence abortion is wrong. It also says homosexuality is wrong, so it is.

Your faulty assumption comes in to play here: You assume that because some amount of people believe something, it must be true. Ie, you think that since the LGBT community says homosexuality is ok, it is. There is no basis to the argument that homosexuality is acceptable, whereas there is clearly a God who dictated the writing of a Holy Book which clearly states that such things are sins.

Given my opponent's faulty logic -- that things are as people believe them to be, rather than things are as they are -- it is clear that Bible is entirely true.

In order for my opponent to reasonably claim that the Bible is not true, he would need to make it clear that the Abrahamic God most likely does not exist -- a task he will find nearly impossible, I imagine.
Debate Round No. 1


I would start out by stating that you have given no clear evidence for the Christian God.

Second, I would like to tell you that their are sever stories in different religions similar to the resurrection of Jesus. What makes Jesus' s story different?

Here is evidence that homes equality is natural and o.k. First, a study found that homosexuality people have certain genes on their X chromosome and chromosome 3, showing that it is actually a born into thing. Also, if God is all knowing, why would he allow for gay and bisexuals to existence beyond the fact that he gives them a choice.

Next topic you bring up is that even if people believe it is right, it isn't always right.

Scientists have been studying chimps and other primates and they have found that they are displaying signs of morals, which is what religion is, a list of morals one must follow.

Finally, the God of the Bible is said to be all loving and omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, yet he let countless genocides occur, most notably the Holocaust and the slaughtering of both blacks and natives. If he knows both the past, present, and future, why would he create Adam and Eve if he knew they would sin, and lead to all these events.

Also, how can we have free will if he knows what we will do. I will also state that if you criticize my Grammer and spelling, it shows that you have no legitimate argument, and science can back that up.


P.S. -You can not use the argument that it is not in the Bible and that is why this is all wrong. I also want you to know that using the "Bible says this so it must be true" argument won't fly and if you use it I will respond with a similarly irrational point of "science says this" or "Scientology say that" so you need to provide some sort of scientific, physical, or watchable evidence.

P.S.S. -Finally, threats with hell is the same as threats of Narka, the Buddist equivalent of he'll that you don't believe in. It won't work on me. ;)


I thank my opponent for his timely response. Let's jump into things!

My opponent has made the following claims and requests and I will address the in the following order:

1. I must provide an amount of evidence for the Christian God so as to prove it is more probable that he exists than that he doesn't.

2. I need to discuss the link between the existence of the Christian God and the veracity of the Bible.

3. I will discuss my opponent's claims regarding homosexuality.

4. I will briefly mention my opponent's comments on chimp/primate morality research.

5. I will talk about why God allows tragedies to happen.

6. I will talk about the nature off free will and how it can coexist with an omniscient God.

1. Evidence For a Christian God

This will no doubt be my longest point, as it is perhaps my most important. I will cover a number of physically based and theoretically based argument that prove the existence of God and a few after that that relate specifically to the Christian God. Let's get started.

Cosmological Argument:It is thought in the scientific community that all physical events have some cause preceding them. In fact, all physical observations made thus far in humanity's scientific career have been found to be caused by something else. This makes sense. Physical things happen because of some change in energy or direction, changes that are brought about by other physical events.

However, this undersanding of things breaks down when we realize that if all events are preceded by others, an infinite amount of events (and thus time) must have occured before now. This is clearly impossible. If an infinite amount of time happened before now, we could not have possibly gotten to this very moment. We must, therefore, assume that time as we know it has not always existed, implying that the universe and physical matter has not always existed.

This directly implies that there was some cause to the univerise that is non-physical and that exists outside of time, separate from it. So far, humans have only been able to think of one possible explanation -- an explanation that is greatly explored throughout theology -- that a god of some sort must have created the universe. It is, of course, possible that there is some other cause, but we must base our beliefs upon what is known and what is probable. According to Occam's Razor, the most simple explanation for an event occuring is most probably the correct one. Knowing this, it is reasonable to assume that a god probably exists and that he probably created our universe.

Intelligent Design:Science has found, repeatedly, that the world is a very chaotic place, in the strictest scientific sense. Systems reguarly devolve into chaos more often than they do not.However, when we look upon the universe and Earth specifically, we see that it exists in a way that is ordered. This order exceeds our scientific expectations of what should actually be.

Given our knowledge of physical systems, we know it is highly unlikely that an efficient, ordered system rises out of chaos. Chaos itself rarely produces order and, when it does, that order is often short lived and insignificant. However, we can look around us and see an incredible amount of order in the universe. The way that space is expanding in the unique and preservable way that it is, the manner in which the Earth is perfectly calibrated to support life, the way in which objects exist in space -- that they are often unthreatened by physical events happening elsewhere.

There are two possible explanations for this order: a) That it is a random occurence or b) that it was orchestrated to be this way. The first explanation is not satisfactory, given our understanding of physical systems. Again, because of Occam's Razor, it is much more simple, and thus likey, to assume that some god purposefully created the universe in the manner he did so that it would create an ordered system. Once more probability wins out for God.

Historical Evidence for Jesus:We will now consider some historical evidence that Jesus existed, along with some other relevant historical evidence. I must reiterate, it is impossible for me to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that god exists or that Jesus existed. However, if I show that it is *most likely* the case that god and Jesus existed, my argument is logically preferable to the opponent's natural counter argument.

Since I am ulitimately trying to prove the veracity of the Bible, it would be foolish for me to use it as a historical reference. Therefore, we need to examine some historical references found in other, non-religious documents. [1] First we have written transcripts from the historian Yamauchi, who documents that Pontius Pilate had a man called Christus executed for his collusion in Christianity. Christus refers to Jesus Christ, as Christus is Latin for Christ. Another reference to Jesus is by Josephus, a first century historian who notes not only that Jesus existed, but that he is known to have risen from his grave three days following his death on the cross.

Lastly, we can look at the writings of the Greek satarist Lucian, who comments upon the existence of Jesus and the 'novel rites' he introduced to his followers. Given that Jesus existed some 2000 years ago, it is very likely that these historical writings hold truth. After all, very few men were so important so as to have their history preserved in such a way for such a long time. These non-Christian references to Jesus demonstrate that Jesus *probably* existed.

The God as the Christian God: Given that we have concluded that Jesus did indeed exist and that he probably rose from the dead, and given that we have concluded a god of some sort did exist, it is now our duty to figure out *which* god this creator god is.

Given all known gods, (by this I mean gods that humans have claimed to exist), the bulk of the evidence implies the existence of the Christian God, due directly to the existence of Jesus Christ. Even the religion of Islam claims that Jesus Christ existed. Given this knowledge, it is reasonable to conclude that the most likely candidate for God is Jesus Christ himself. All other religious texts are largely allegory, speaking in flowy, poetic patterns, with little reference to historical events. The Bible, in comparison, is rife with historical references, many of which have been confirmed or corroborated with third party sources.

2. The Veracity of the Bible

If the Christian God does exist, as we have demonstrated to be the most likely case, it is necessary for the Bible to be true. To restate -- the existence of the Christian God necessitates the veracity of the Holy Bible. If the Christian God were real and the Bible were not true, the God would by definition not be the Christian God. As I have pointed out, historical evidence supports the idea that Jesus did exist and did perform miracles and Jesus Christ did say that the Bible was true. What's more, the New Testament is written largely based upon the actual works of Christ.

An interesting point must be made here. While the Bible is true and while it is influenced by God himself, not all things in it should be taken literally. Take the creation story, for instance. There is strong evidence that the universe came into existene in a very different way that what the Bible claims. One most note, however, that God *very frequently* speaks in parable, as parables can be fundementally understood across languages and cultures. There are many parts of the Bible that clearly cannot be literally true, but this does not mean that they are not true parables -- that these parables do not reflect the will of God.

3. Homosexuality

I'm running out of characters, so I will only briefly speak on this. First, the evidence presented by my opponent is inconclusive. If you read the article, it states that a genetic similarity was found to be in common with gay men, however the study did not include straight men at all. This means it is quite possible that this genetic similarity is also found in straight men. There have been studies, however, examining twins, one of whom is gay and one who is not. [2] This study shows that twins most often have differing sexualities. Since twins share identical genes, this directly implies that homosexuality is not significantly genetically based.

It's worth mentioning that even if some people are inclined to be homosexual, this does not disprove God. God does not simply give humans a perfect life free from pain and temptation. This is a natural part of life and God expects you to deal with these in a Holy way. God would not be a very good one if he handed people the after life on a silver platter. One must prove dedication to God through faith.

4. Chimp/Primate Research

My opponent makes two claims. One, that chimps show a sort of morality and two, that a list of morals is all the Bible is. To the first, he provides no evidence. Even if he did, demonstrating moral behavior is in no ways a disproof of God. Often times, logical behavior is moral behavior, and it is not suprising to see chimpes and primates behaving logically. As for the second claim, the Bible is much more than a "list of morals". It is a code for living one's life following the footsteps of God.

5. Tragedies

Again, look back to my argument regarding homosexuality. God allows diversity and tragedy to happen because it gives people an opportunity to become more faithful. Additionally, it's worth mentioning that many tragedies are man-made. Since we have free will, God played no role in this.

6. Free Will and Omniscience

I'm out of characters. I'll further discuss this in my next round.


1 -
2 -
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to give an example about how Christianity is not different from restate.

I woman walks into a restate office and asks for a house. The agent says that she has one house, its a beautiful mansion with a pool in the back, three stories high, and a lovely garden on the side.

The woman says its great but that sounds a little bit out of my price range.

The restate agent says it isn't and that it is actually $150,000.

The woman says she wants to take a look because that sounds too good to be true.

The agent says no because the owner of the house says it is perfect and fine.

The lady says that she would like to take a look because she can't give her money on someone else's word, and I must see it before I buy it.

The agent says that you must buy it first before seeing it. Otherwise take your business else where.

The woman then leaves the office and heads home. On the way home she sees a man with a suit and a Bible.

The man stops her and asks if she wants to join Christianity.

She then asks what it is.

He replies with the response that we believe in one supernatural being that is all-knowing and all loving. Then, after we die we go to heaven where we live in eternal happiness.

The woman says that you guys believe in something you can't see, feel, touch, taste, or smell and when I die I go to a place that I can't see, feel, touch, taste, or smell until I die.

The man says yes, that is correct.

Well that sounds amazing, the woman says, I will join.

Moral is that it is no different from the house she just declined.

What I just gave you was a story that really happened. Also, you can say you have the Bible, but the restate agent could have had a document that described the house by someone who has claimed to see it.

Now, on to your points about evidence of God. You say that something had to have happened to cause the big bang. Well, there is a theory that someone/thing went back in time and, in order to go back to his place in space and time, had to create everything. This could happen because he was before time and space. So it created the universe and himself indirectly, so that events could occur for him to eventually do this. It is a paradox.

Paradoxes aren't impossible, in fact Zena has proven a paradox.

The third is the paradox of the fletcher who finds that all of his arrows are unable to move at all. At any given instant in time, the arrow is motionless in flight. During that frozen moment, the arrow cannot move at all, since it has no time in which to do it. Time consists of an infinite succession of moments, in each of which the arrow is unable to move. Nowhere can we find a given instant in which the arrow has time to move, and so no matter how many such instants we have, the arrow can neither fly nor fall to the ground.

As you can see, a paradox is solved, showing that a paradox can be solved.

Another theory is that there is two universes. Each has black holes. Im our universe, we have black holes. The theory states that everything ever black hole in our universe has ever and will ever consume, goes into the other universe, in their big bang. Also, the same thing happens with their universe and our big bang.

I will end on a qoute,
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."


I'd like to than the opponent for his response. I'll simply address his response in the order provided.

First, my opponent mentions a tells a parable about real estate and God. While the story is cute, it isn't much in the way of an argument. My opponent attempts to frame faith as unreasonable by comparing it to a real estate transaction. As I earlier implied, faith is an integral part of Christianity. Part of the whole 'believing in God' thing is that there must be some degree of faith. Additionally, I have already shown through evidence and argument that it is reasonable to assume that God exists. So this parable has no place here.

Next my opponent says something about an apparently existing theory. According to this theory, some person went back in time in order to create the universe, so that all the actions of his day could occur. My opponent then points out that this is a paradox, but later says paradoxes can be resolved.

I'm not sure what my opponent is trying to argue here. I have given a reasonable argument stating that the 'first cause' would need to be a powerful being outside our temporal field. There's no reason to believe that a man travelled back in time (something we currently believe to be impossible) and somehow managed to create the entirety of the universe. In fact, this claim is so unreasonable that it borders on utter fantasy.

Regarding paradoxes, by opponent briefly mentions the Zeno's Archer paradox. He seems to be attempting to show that paradoxes can exist inside the physical world, justifying is odd theories. I'd like to remind the audience that a paradox is something that is illogical in nature -- some statement using seemingly reasonable premises that results in some impossible conclusion. Paradoxes are literally defined as something which is impossible or illogical and they don't exist in our universe.

Take Zeno's Archer, for instance. My opponent failed to mention that this 'paradox' has been solved. While an arrow in flight may cross an infinite number of points in space, taking some time to traverse between each point, we now know that the sum of infities can lead to finite numbers. Just as 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... is equal to 2, we know that the time it takes an arrow to traverse a distance is equally as finite. This paradox is known to be solved, showing that it was never a paradox in the first place.

Finally, my opponent talks about another theory. He states that there are actually two universes connected by black holes. Whenever something is sucked into a black hole in universe A, it gets thrown into universe B, and vice versa.

I'll start by saying this is an unsubstantiated theory (and I'm not entirely sure it's a real theory at all.) I have given arguments/evidence as to why it is reasable to believe God created the universe, while this theory has no supporint evidence as all. Next, I should point out that my first cause argument still applies to this argument.

Let's say, for example, that the Big Bang really did occur because a large amount of matter was somehow immediately sucked into a black hole in the other unvierse and emitted into our own. This demonstrates a sort of cycle, each universe consisting of matter until it is sucked into the transdimensional black hole of death and transferred to the other. If we were to follow the cycles back, it would be clear that there needs to be some event which creates the matter (and universes) in the first place. As I've already explained, there cannot be an infinite amount of time before us and since both universes (assumably) are affected by time, there must have been some point as which time did not exist. This requires a non-temporal being who created the universes to begin with. My argument still applies.

In conclusion, my arguments went unmet. My opponent elected to give a parable and two ridiculous theories about the origins of our universe. As I stated, we are looking for the most probable explanation for the way things are. I gave considerable evidence and quite a few logical argument; my opponent has given little. It is clear this debate, at this point, goes to me.

I'd like to suggest that my opponent address my arguments next round.
Debate Round No. 3


Three questions and three links.

One, can God create a rock he can't lift?

Two, how does God know that their isn't something he doesn't know if he doesn't know it?

Three, how conceded is God that you must obey him?


It seems that my opponent is simply adding new arguments every round as to why God doesn't exist. I will assume that he concedes that I have won the previous arguments, contigent upon the fact that I also win these. I'll jump right into the the first of my opponent's three arguments.

1. God and a Stone

If we are to trust the Bible, which I have been arguing is valid and entirely true, then we know God to be omnipotent. According to my opponent, this means that could should be powerful enough to bring about a situaiton in which he is powerless to do something -- thus showing he is not omnipotent. Two points must be made here.

First, omnnipotence does not mean the power to do absolutlely anything, but rather the ability to do absolutely anything that is consistent with the current state of affairs. Let's consider one of the most common logical axioms: That something is itself. For instance, a car is a car. 1 == 1. A leaf is a leaf. If humans and God were to not exist, this axiom would still hold true, as logic's correctness does not depend upon the existence of a sentient being. Given this, God could not make 1 == 2 and he could not make it true that 'a car is a street'. These are not conistent with the state of affairs.

Second, regarding the actual proposed situation, many think this is a paradox, that this is a situation that generates an illogical conclusion. If you accept this is the case, simply refer to by above points. God's inabiity to create an illogical situation does not impede upon his omnipotence. However, this stone situation is in no way a paradox.

Is God capable of creating a stone that he cannot lift? Yes. What would happen if he were to do this? He would no longer be omnipotent. An omnipotent being is powerful enough to make Himself no longer omnipotent. In the Bible, it says that God claims he is omnipotent, not that he is only capable of being omnipotent. It's completely reasonable that God has the power to 'demote' himself in status, just as a President has the power to demote himself to being just a prisoner. Given the wishes of God described in the Bible, it is unlikely that he would ever desire to make himself powerless to some situation, however this doesn't mean he is not capable of it.

2. What God Knows and Doesn't Know

I wasn't quite sure what my opponent was getting at in his brief description, so I found the video link he was referring to. Essentially DarkMatter (the maker of the video) argues this point, using lust as an example: "If God doesn't know what lust feels like, he isn't all-knowing. If he does, he isn't all-good."

I take issue with the last part of the argument. The opponent essentially conflates knowledge of something good or bad with being good or bad. Biblical sin is always defined as an action, whereas this video implies that knowledge of something in and of itself can be sinful.

Consider that time when your younger brother/mean aunt/etc. did something so completely infuriating that, for just a moment, you literally felt like murdering them. Now, if you're like the rest of us, other instincts kicked in and that urge went away. However, it was definitely there. No ask yourself, are you guilty of murder? Of course not. Having the understanding of what it's like to want to murder someone is not the same as actually murdering someone.

Likewise, God is all-knowing, meaning he is not only aware of the physical events going on in the universe, but he is also aware of the feelings in our heart. (Multiple verses claim God knows what's in our hearts.) This does not mean that he agrees with these feelings or that he is guilty of having these feelings himself. Yes, God does know what it's like to feel lust, but that doesn't imply that he has actually felt lust. Knowledge of the sins of others is not, itself, a sin. I welcome my opponent to provide some evidence to the contrary.

3. God's Desire for You to Obey Him

The next response will be brief. My opponent says that the fact that you must obey God makes him conceited.

First, we don't have to obey God. God has said that murder is a sin, but there have been plenty of murders happen throughout time. God gave us free will, meaning he allowed us the ability to either obey him or not.

Next, it is not vain for God to wish us to obey him. Being absolutely good and providing a clear moral code, God wishes us to obey him because that is the only way we ourselves can approach being perfect good. God doesn't want us to follow him because is vain, he wants us to follow him because that is, in itself, good.

The desire for someone to be good isn't anymore vain than it is for a judge to wish that others would follow the law.

I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 4


First, the exact definition of omnipotent is having unlimited power; able to do anything. This means that he could make a square circle. You will probably reply with the fact that God is only able to do anything already set in motion. Why can't he change physics.
Also, why does God help the rich and we'll off more than the poor and helpless. Athletes always thank God for their accomplishments. The Pope will say God gave him this opportunity and they are almost all have enough money to stay self sustained.
You can argue that this is God's plan, but I would argue that a God that helps the first world more than the third world is one that has very messed up values. Since God gave me free will, I will exercise that and say he doesn't exist. I say this using your logic that he is real.
A very hypocritical point you make is the God is real, yet he resides outside time and space. How can one be somewhere that isn't in the universe. It is expected that the universe has everything. So unless he is in a different form, your logic is flawed.
I'm about to make a major assumption just like you have that since time started, someone had to start that, and because of that it must be the Christian God. I'm going to assume that you are against slavery, seeing as it is the 21st century. In the Bible, slavery is justified. It explicitly says that, "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished." This says that only owners that kill their slaves are punishable. You could argue that the Bible says, "If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress." This though only applies for Jews and Christians. It even say that you can, "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly."
Though this doesn't say that you have to have slaves, it does show that calling slavery sinful is wrong. You may reply to this with the phrase, "it was written long ago," but that would show that God can change his mind and that he may support gays.
You could also say that it was people writing in the Bible to get their ways approved, but that w p under show that Christians didn't know the difference between a person's and God's will, and I could then proceed to use this argument with the rest of the Bible because Christians believed this writing and God hasn't come back to denounce it.
I do want to point out that this is all using your logic about the existence of God and that I don't believe that he does exist.
Another thing I should pull up is that just because 3 religions say Jesus was a prophet, Christianity, Islam, and Bahia Faith, doesn't prove anything. Abraham is the most widely believed prophet in terms of religions that say he is. I don't see you calling him the return of God.
Finally, for my closing statement, many religions use paper and books to persuade the population. That doesn't make Christianity different.
Finally, if you only take parts of Christianity, you are either not a true Christian but a non - believer as God would call it, or a Unitarian, something you aren't because you have to take from many religions to be considered that.
Thank You
And Let The Force Be With You ;)


Again my opponent seems to be briefly bringing up a few points while responding to some of my own. I will go through my opponent's most recent argument in the order presented, then give my closing statements.

"The exact definition of omnipotent is unlimited power..."

As I previously pointed out, omnipotence means unlimited power, except the power to do the logically impossible. Logic doesn't have a physical existence and it would still exist in the abstract sense even if nothing else did. The study of logic isn't so much the study of a *thing* as it is a recognition of what must be true.

However, for the sake of the argument, let's assume God is capable of changing logic. In that case, he can do the logically impossible, as he has total control over logic himself. In this sense, one cannot use a logical argument to disprove God's existence, as logic holds no power over God. So either God's is omnipotent, but changing logic isn't possible within this definition, in which case my previous argument holds; or God's omnipotence isn't bounded by logic, in which case this argument holds.

"Why does God help the rich and not the poor."

A central tenant of the Bible is that physical wealth doesn't matter in the eyes of God. As such, he has no interest in helping people get wealthy. Those who do have wealth have it because of their own personal achievements or their family's achievements. Additionally, the Bible speaks greatly of how adversity is one of the ways God helps build our faith in him. There is no mention in the Bible and there is no logical reason to assume that God has an obligation to blindly help everyone be absolutely healthy, rich, etc.

Part of giving human's free will was also allowing them to deal with their own mistakes and failings. People who are unfortunate today are so as a direct result of the failings of others. There is enough prosperity in the world to make everyone happy, but the failings of man prevents this possibility from coming into fruition.

Again, God doesn't 'help out' the first world more than the third world. The first world helps itself out more than the third world.

"How can God exist outside of time and space? ... Unless he exists in another form, your logic is flawed."

I agree. Unless God exists in another form, my logic is indeed flawed. However, "existing outside of time and space" clearly implies that God exists in another form. As I have said, in order for God to exist he must necessarily exist in another form outside of time and space. I have also previously proven that there must exist a being outside of time and space for the universe to exist.


My opponent brings up an important point that I wish he would have mentioned early. The Bible does indeed speak of many acceptable laws that seem absolutely immoral to us today. There are three ways of looking at this, and all imply the veracity of the Bible.

First, many of the laws in the Bible specifically mention that they are for a particular group of people living in a particular land at a particular time. This means that slavery would have been justified at a point in time for some people, in the eyes of God. The reasons why these laws don't apply now is a) because the Bible didn't say they extended to all people at all times and b) because God knew that the culture of the world would change and that slavery wouldn't always be necessary. In light of this, we can say that slavery was justified long ago for the people the Bible said it did, but that it is not necessarly anymore.

Second, those who have studied the Bible to any degree know that know that when Jesus died many of our past laws were extinguised. The Bible said that Jesus brought "a New Law" upon the land, as well as forgiving humanity's past sins. This further reflects that God understands that different cultures at different points in history need different laws. And this makes sense. With the great technological and societal advances that happen over time, it makes sense that laws that are optimal at one point might not be optimal at the next. This doesn't imply that God has "changed his mind", but rather that God understands that as time goes on, the laws that most benefit mankind change as well.

If you don't buy those arguments, however, there is another way to look at it. I've shown that a God of somesort necessarily exists and that historical evidence and logic implies that this god is the Christian God. Knowing this, if the Bible says that slavery is moral, then it is. Just because you (and most others) feel that this is immoral doesn't matter. God's word is the absolute moral right and your personal feelings on the matter don't do anything to change that. God's existence doesn't depend on whether or not you personally agree with that existence.

"...many religions use paper and books..."

Yes, they do. Throughout all of history, since the advent of paper and before the advent of computers, paper is all that people had to record events and history. Since most religious texts pre-date the computer, it is not surprising to find that they all utilize paper and books in order to record their message.

"...if you only take parts of Christianity, you are ... not a true Christian..."

Again, this is true. The Bible says that it is wholly true and that you must believe in the whole Word in order to be considered a Christian. However, there really isn't much reason to bring this up. I have not declared in any of my arguments that part of the Bible isn't true, nor have I attempted to take ideas from other religions.

Conclusion and Closing Statements

My opponent failed nearly every round to respond to the arguments that I previously made. Instead, he continuosly introduced new ones. While this is fine, it means that every argument he left alone should be considered by the reader to be a "dropped argument", one that goes to me by default, since the opponent made no attempt to combat me on it.

The general flow of the debate went like this: I claimed that the Bible is real because a god is real and that god is most likely Christian. --> The opponent made many arguments against the logical possibility of a god existing. --> I defended these.

It's important to realize that my opponent never effectively argued against my point that "There must necessarily be a god," using the First Cause argument. So we are to assume, at this point, there must be a god. My opponent also never argued against my "This god is most likely the Christian God", which was based upon logical arguments and historical evidence. Again, we must assume he forfeits that point. I also pointed out that the existence of the Christian God necessitates that the Bible is entirely ture, since if it was not the God in question would not be the Christian God.

Stopping here, I have won the round. I made a set of arguments that the opponent did not address and which directly proved the resolution in question. What's more, I countered every attempt my opponent made to argue some logical flaw in the existence of any God, thoroughly, clearly, and logically.

While I have been playing Devil's Advocate and I never like to see a debate like this go to Con, it is clear that I have made superior arguments and have won this round.

I thank you for reading and I look forward to your vote.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Traylzac: You were rewarded zero points because of the rigid voting construct! At the beginning of the debate you were on the right track with homosexuality, Genesis vs Evolution, Claims of Jesus meeting burden of proof, and the nature of God in the bible (Omnipotent, Benevolent etc) and how that is not consistent with the other ways God is represented. Like flooding the earth essentially causing a human exodus akin to Filicide (The murder of your own child) I feel as though you missed an opportunity to demonstrate your burden of proof or even turn the burden of proof on to your opponent which ultimately resulted in a loss!
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Yeah Gotach was meant to be gotcha lol
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Gotach!! That makes me feel better that you don't really stand by your position! If you did We would surely need to discuss it lol
Posted by Cobalt 2 years ago
Sorry, Finalfan, but I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. I would never take this debate with a clearly knowledgeable opponent.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Ahhhh!!!! Noooo!!! I want to debate Cobalt!! I'm gonna create a debate and send it to him/her.. We can have a real debate! Sorry pro but you missed almost every major point that makes your position a slam dunk!!
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
traylzac: You need to bring it! Cobalts first round had me face palming so hard I have a hand print on my face!! So many fallacies!!!
Posted by Cobalt 3 years ago
Nah, I'll take it. Let's beat them at their own game.
Posted by Unitomic 3 years ago
I saw we ban this debate for being stupid.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: This debate did not require a volley of logic! It required a burden of proof from con demonstrating the inconsistencies between the bibles claims and reality! I felt that con could have saved his breath by using the many examples to support this position which he failed to provide! Instead he focused on the practical aspects of the religion instead of the texts itself! Even mentiong the diverse sea of denominations that cannot agree on the bible would have been in a direction that was intended for the topic of debate!! I really do not like the voting method here as I certainly do not conceit to pro's position!