The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
it_is_me
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

The god of the bible does not 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
it_is_me
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,921 times Debate No: 119939
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (39)
Votes (4)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Rules:
Prove that the god of the bible exists

1. Prove that there is only one creator/ god.
2. Test, Demonstrate and assert this god.
3. No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any to prove its god's existence.
4. Chapters and verses only please from either the KJV, NIV, NLT.

5. For extra credit, Prove that any god has ever existed.

6. Dsjpk5 is disqualified from any voting procedures for this debate.
it_is_me

Con

Backwardseden has laid out six very specific rules for this debate and it is by those rules you must judge me. For example, It'd be deeply unfair to criticise me for not providing any scientific evidence for God when such arguments have been explicitly prohibited (rule 3).

Therefore, My proof is as follows:

1. Bible verses, Backed up by chapters and verses, Are the only form of evidence permitted in this debate (rule 4 "Chapters and verses only please")
2. Therefore, To prove to Backwardseden that the God of the Bible exists I must provide evidence which meets his very specific criteria.
3. The Bible clearly states that God exists ("For there is one God, And there is one mediator between God and men, The man Christ Jesus" 1 Timothy 2:5)
4. Therefore, The God of the Bible exists

Now I anticipate that Backwardseden will respond by explaining he's a proud atheist and paid up member of the Matt Diluhunty fan club. If that"s the case, Then he shouldn't have accepted the Bible as evidence or banned scientific-based arguments in his original challenge.

I may not have proven God's existence by the standards of the scientific method, Nor through logic, However I have by Backwardseden's rules as laid out in his opening challenge. If Backwardseden wanted to debate me on whether modern science points to God or whether the historical evidence for Jesus is on par with other events from Graeco-Roman history then that is the debate he should have requested.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Well, First off there is no scientific evidence for your god of the bible which is why rule 3 stands firm and tall. Regardless, There's no scientific proof for your god's existence in your bible to prove your god. You nor anyone cannot make leaps and bounds and show off your god unto the world just because you want to. As the matter of fact, There is no evidence for your god of the bible existing, Period, Not even the bible is evidence, In which case it is the only thing that you have to prove your god's existence, In which case is no proof at all. Here's an extended video to help you. . .
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=FJiNtQW3vHs - Talk Heathen Determine if a Holy Book Is Reliable
There's a lot of knowledge within the video. So no, I'm not going to type out all the details of it, Or the ideals of it because that would be doing the video a grave injustice. It would also carry over, Rather easily, The 50, 000 character limit DDO has set.
Secondly, Your god even if remotely intelligent, In which case he's not according to your bible (but you still have to prove his existence) would not be stupid enough, Not ever, Not for any reason, To use text, Namely your bible as a source of communication, The worst source of communication possible.
So in fact, This leaves you with nothing, An absolute 0 to prove your god's existence. Then again, Why would you want to?

3. The Bible clearly states that God exists ("For there is one God, And there is one mediator between God and men, The man Christ Jesus" 1 Timothy 2:5) Let's examine/ dissect that ridiculous verse for what it is. So that means according to this specific verse that god himself cannot communicate with men. GREAT! Toss out the entire OT according to that stupid pathetic verse. Wow. Yep that includes creation, The 10 commandments, The 10 plagues, The parting of the red sea, The great flood and all of its crap that never happened, Sodom and Gomorrah, Etc etc etc.
4. Therefore, The god of the bible most certainly does not exist according to your bible. Sheesh. You just proved yourself wrong.
Btw, You might want to check up on genesis 1:26 when your bible mentions "us" and "our". "And God said, Let us make man in our image, After our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, And over the fowl of the air, And over the cattle, And over all the earth, And over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. " Who is this "us" and "our"? Ah yes indeed other god's. So your god is NOT one god according to your bible. Now if you want to get to the nitty gritty. . . Many believe that your jesus was a god. Actually according to your bible, Jesus was the "son of god" and jesus referred to your god as "father", On many different occasions for both, But regardless was still considered as a god, Even though was clearly a false prophet. So since christianity considers your jesus to be a god, Then you have your god, Well duh that makes TWO god's. So again, According to your bible there most certainly was NOT in any possible way "one" god. So all christianity is thus proven to be false because the OT is thus false, That is unless you dump the entire OT completely in which is a true impossibility, The god of the OT is false, And thus the NT and the OT are completely different religions.

"If that"s the case, Then he shouldn't have accepted the Bible as evidence or banned scientific-based arguments in his original challenge. " Oh but I did accept your bible as evidence - to prove it fraudulent and fake in which is the correct and proper thing to do.

"I may not have proven God's existence by the standards of the scientific method, Nor through logic, " Well you haven't proven anything. Don't worry though. . . Neither has anyone else. There's no proof, None whatsoever of any god's existence for any religion in the history of the entire human race.
it_is_me

Con

Scientific Evidence
I believe that modern science does point towards God. Nonetheless, As you’ve stipulated that such evidence is not allowed then we’ll have to leave it at that. If you’re so confident that you could win a debate on this topic then maybe you should have thrown down the gauntlet rather than banned your opponent from making such arguments. As you’ve lost 65 of your previous debates and only ever won 4 I would question whether you are as logical/reasonable as you like to think you are.

Text is the worst form of communication possible
This is quite ironic considering that we’re currently using text to communicate with each. In what way is it the worst form of communication possible?

1 Timothy 2:5
I think you’ve misunderstood what a mediator is. The original Greek word used in the passage is ‘μεσP55;της’, Which, According to Strong’s Greek dictionary, Means “one who intervenes between two, Either in order to make or restore peace and friendship” (see https://www. Blueletterbible. Org/lang/lexicon/lexicon. Cfm? T=esv&strongs=g3316) Therefore, The passage in 1 Timothy is not describing Jesus as a generic messenger, But focusing on his role as a reconciler between human sin and God’s righteousness.

“The god of the bible most certainly does not exist according to your bible. ”
Do you know what a tautology is? The God of the Bible must, By very definition, Be same thing as the God according to the Bible.

Who is this "us" and "our"?
There are lots of theories about this, Personally I think it’s referring to the trinity. The trinity has generally been interpreted as being compatible with a monotheistic God.

There's no proof
What counts as proof? In a court of law it means convincing a jury, Beyond reasonable doubt, That the defendant is guilty. In mathematics it means following some precise notation to layout a valid theorem. In the context of this debate, Surely proof must be judged against the set of rules you yourself have laid out. In your previous post you state that “I did accept your bible as evidence”; if that’s the case then the Bible verse I gave fulfils your criteria. Normally an atheist is entitled to reject faith-based arguments, However having specifically requested such reasoning you’ve boxed yourself into a corner!
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Scientific Evidence
When you state that "you believe", That"s the same exact thing as "you are guessing" which means I really should not read any further and automatically trash anything you have to say. You fully get that - right? But let"s see what you got considering that you must think you are smarter than Neil De Gras Tyson, Stephen Hawking etc as they have not been able in any way shape or form to scientifically god. Btw, Which god?
"As you"ve lost 65 of your previous debates"" Wanna know why? Take one lucky guess whippersnapper, Go on take one lucky guess. Go on. Since you think you are so smart, Obviously arrogant as well, And ignorant also. Know who dsjpk5 is? Nothing more be said.

Text is the worst form of communication possible
"This is quite ironic considering that we"re currently using text to communicate"" I really should end the debate right now with such a completely hypnotic stupid statement like that one especially considering the absolute fact that you didn"t even watch the video to prove how fraudulent and fake your bible truly is, Thus proving that your god is as well. Now go back and study up as to what was previously stated and put some cotton candy in your brain rather than cabbage. Btw, Where's your reference(s)?

1 Timothy 2:5
"I think you"ve misunderstood what a mediator is. " I didn"t misunderstand anything. "one who intervenes between two, " EXACTLY youngun. You just lost your case for yah. Wow.
"The god of the bible most certainly does not exist according to your bible. " Taking things out of context are we? It goes in conjunction perfectly with the spearheaded 1 Timothy 2:5. This is just simply too easy.
"Do you know what a tautology is? The God of the Bible must, By very definition, Be same thing as the God according to the Bible. " Oh you mean like thou shalt not kill but its ok for you to kill anyway because your god kills and he orders you to do it anyway? Oh I get it. Nah. Because once again your god, Because of what you presented as an example, To bring in CONFUSION that YOU think you know best, Especially above everybody else, Would never use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. "The god of the bible must". Strange isn"t it that you nor anyone can prove that this god of yours even exists. So where does this "must" come from? And backtracking to "god"?
Who is this "us" and "our"?
"Personally I think"" More guesswork. "it"s referring to the trinity. " Well the trinity is trash. How can there be any fricken truth to it considering the FACT that genesis was written at a completely different time from the NT so by that merit alone they have 0% of nothing to do with each other. Duh.

There's no proof
"What counts as proof? " Well garsh there. That"s like thinking that Daffy Duck is a god. Wow. Are you this ignorant to ask THAT question? "In a court of law it means convincing a jury, " Well you do realize that no creationist will ---ever--- put your god on trial again. Take two lucky guesses why? Do you even know? Or did you just toss that one out because you really are completely inept? "Beyond reasonable doubt, That the defendant is guilty. In mathematics it means following some precise notation to layout a valid theorem. " And guess what? Your god has none of that. Take one lucky guess why?
In the context of this debate, Surely proof must be judged against the set of rules you yourself have laid out. In your previous post you state that "I did accept your bible as evidence"; if that"s the case then the Bible verse I gave fulfils your criteria. " 100% wrong. Take one lucky guess why? OK I"ll give you the answer to that question. But the others, Yeah, You"ll have to guess at them. Hopefully, And that is if and only if you are intelligent and educated, You"ll get them right. OK the answer is so simple" its a verse. Big whoop. Who in their right mind would ever assume that its a correct verse? And the verse proves WHAT exactly other than a few meaningless tribal words? You have a long long long windy road of the big bang as compared to an atom to climb.

"Normally an atheist is entitled to reject faith-based arguments, " Oh we haven"t even touched on faith, Even though obviously it is part of the answers, Though not completely.

A hint: don"t get too far ahead of yourself otherwise you"ll bury yourself in a tapdance of some concrete parachuting classes. Just a fair warning.

Time for my nap.
it_is_me

Con


Let’s judge Backwardseden’s third round by the rules he himself set out in his opening challenge:

Prove that there is only one creator/ god.
If it were not for rule 3, I’d have gone down a route of pointing to the cosmological evidence for the big bang and argued that a point of singularity better supports the hypotheses that the universe was brought into being by one cause/creator than multiple. As Backwardseden has specifically asked me not to go down a scientific route, I instead took note of rule 4 and gave him a Bible verse in support of monotheism (although I decided to go with 1 Timothy 2:5, There are plenty of others I could have chosen - for example Ephesians 4:6, Deuteronomy 4:35, Nehemiah 9:6, 1 Chronicles 17:20 to name just a few)
So what has Backwardseden offered in response to this?
Backwardseden seems to think that describing Jesus as a mediator contradicts the Old Testament. This is not the case – when, For example, God spoke to Moses through a burning bush the bush was not playing the rule of a mediator and therefore there is no contradiction. Backwardseden offers nothing new in his third round and simply tells me that “I’ve lost my case yah”. Well I think Backwardseden has lost their case, Does that now make us even?
Backwardseden also thinks that the trinity contradicts monotheism. According to the BBC’s guide to religions it is a common mistake to assume the trinity is “Three Gods” (http://www. Bbc. Co. Uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/trinity_1. Shtml) Calling the doctrine “trash” doesn’t change this. Backwardseden argument that Genesis and the New Testament can’t have anything to do with each other because they weren’t written at the same time commits the fallacy of begging the question (to completely rule out the possibility that the Bible was divinely inspired presupposes the very thing your argument is meant to ultimately be proving! )

Test, Demonstrate and assert this god.
Presumably using the conditions laid in rules 3 and 4…

No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any to prove its god's existence.
Using the word ‘so-called’ and excluding scientific reasoning from this debate shows that is Backwardseden who lacks respect for the scientific method, Not me. Backwardseden cannot ban me from using scientific arguments and then complain when I comply.
He asks me if I think I’m smarter than Neil De Gras Tyson, Stephen Hawking etc. I happy to declare that no, I don’t think I’m smarter than these people. Does Backwardseden think he’s smarter than John Polkinghorne, Frances Collins, Simon Conway Morris and all the other distinguished scientists that believe modern science does point towards God?

Chapters and verses only please from either the KJV, NIV, NLT.
Does randomly linking to a 38 minute Youtube video meet this rule? No! Therefore I am under no obligation to watch it. Does asserting that text is the worst form of communication possible (without backing your assertion up) and resorting to ad hominem attacks adhere to this rule? No! Does accusing creationism of failing to stand-up in a court of law (I’m a theistic evolutionist, By the way) meet this rule? No!
It’s always important to define your terms in a debate; as you’ve defined proof/evidence as providing you with a Bible chapter and verses then that is what I can done. If you don't like this definition then that's your fault for creating this rule.

For extra credit, Prove that any god has ever existed.
This rule is unnecessary – if I can show that the God of the Bible exists then I’ve automatically succeeded at this.

Dsjpk5 is disqualified from any voting procedures for this debate.
You claim that Dsjpk5 is the sole reason you’ve lost most of the debates you’ve participated in. Having looked at some of your previous debates and the reasons people have left for voting against you, It’s your name calling and use of ad hominem attacks that is the main reason you keep losing debates. Perhaps you should reconsider your debate strategy?
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

Naturally my dogmatic opponent It__Is__Me, But who is that really? Neatly avoided everything that was put forward to him in RD2. So therefore, Why should this debate continue when his bible was proven to be fake and fraudulent in which case is the ---ONLY--- outlet that he has to his neanderthal unproven god in which case nobody has ever proven his god to have ever existed in the first place?

OK I"ll continue and see what he has to say. It will be the three strike rule plus the original six rules staying intact. Three strikes of miserable made up excuses, As soooo many do, And he will be out and this debate will come to a close INSTANTLY. If my opponent does not like those rules, Tough. He"s the one who ran into a brick wall, Not me. So the question remains" is he ready?

"Let"s judge Backwardseden"s third round by the rules he himself set out in his opening challenge:" OK Let"s. Nah nee nah nee boo boo.
"Prove that there is only one creator/ god. "
Awe well garsh golly, What does my opponent try to do? He uses biblical verses to try to prove his god"s existence. Did he even take the time to watch the video to prove his bible is fake, Fraudulent and for multiple reasons cannot be relied upon? Why no. Of course not. Since he didn"t and relies on his bible, A storybook with his supposed unproven god, Not proved by anybody, Not ever in the history of the human race, I mean wowzsers, Someone wrote something on a piece of paper thousands of years ago that has been interpreted by someone who has transcribed everything that his bible states with hundreds of thousands of different translations with copies upon copies upon copies upon copies etc with dead languages upon dead languages that die off and within these translations and copies these messages are so garbled and different from one another that they become lost.
"1 Timothy 2:5, There are plenty of others I could have chosen - for example Ephesians 4:6, Deuteronomy 4:35, Nehemiah 9:6, 1 Chronicles 17:20 to name just a few)" So I guess that my opponent MUST think they are true just because someone wrote them down and translated them into English oh from who knows how many generations and copies up until now with a 0% chance that any of them had any chance that there was a possibility for any of them to be translated and copied from the original because nobody knows if an original exists. Now suppose that there is an original found and thus translations do exist from it? So? Who interprets it so that everybody understands it and gets the same exact message from copy to copy and translation to translation? Well that"s a true impossibility. It doesn"t even exist within English translations and copies. Here's only a few examples:
* In the Bishop"s bible, The one before the KJV, The word "Tyrant" was used I don"t know how many times (its at least 400 from what completed records show) and then in the KJV that was replaced by "King". WHAT? Tyrant and KIng are two different and totally apples and oranges with each having totally different meanings.
* In Isaiah 45:7 KJV "I form the light, And create darkness: I make peace, And create evil: I the Lord do all these things. " In the NIV version its "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, The Lord, Do all these things. " In the NLT its "I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, The Lord, Am the one who does these things. In the ESV "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity;I am the Lord, Who does all these things. " The words "evil" and "disaster" and "bad" and "calamity" are completely 4 completely different words that have 0% of nothing to do with each other and completely change the meaning of the verses. With each different verse, The messages are completely different. The synonyms of each word don"t even match.
* Proverbs 15:24 KJV "The way of life is above to the wise, That he may depart from hell beneath. " NIV "The path of life leads upward for the prudent to keep them from going down to the realm of the dead. " NLT "The path of life leads upward for the wise; they leave the grave behind. "Now what do those very same verses and thus their translations have ANYTHING to do with each other?
That"s strike 1.

Moving on.
"Backwardseden seems to think that describing Jesus as a mediator contradicts the Old Testament. " Well YOUR jesus was a false prophet. There are several reasons for this. One is mainly because he broke your god"s laws such as working on the sabbath in which required death. The law Exodus 31:14, And Numbers 15: 32-36, And your jesus in which you cannot even prove has ever existed broke that law Matthew 12:1. Here"s some videos to help you about your sneezerag christ. If you do not watch and take in/ comprehend these videos it means you are unwilling to accept evidence which means you are unwilling to debate which means don't talk to me further.
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=6lqC8fvIspY - jesus wasn"t jesus
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=KXAGpCTiGlQ - The True Core of the jesus Myth
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=apS_679ru50 - Did jesus Exist?
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=9AzwJ9d4i1g - Why christianity is Unreasonable
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=x-slAgzJmdU - Why Does Every Intelligent christian disobey jesus?
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=AJMd5UiTeys - Biggest Lie - The fourth gospel ("The first striking revision in the 4th gospel is that the ministry of jesus has ballooned out from from one year to three. The writers not only make a reference not only from one but to three distinct passover festivals. Now was this just a tradition that some early christians held to a three year ministry and others to a one year ministry? Can anyone honestly maintain that whole dialogues could be remembered word for word for many decades and yet believers have no common agreement whether these words were said during one year or during three years? ") Um duh. Do you REALLY THINK jesus existed?
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=lDpEeHD54Mo&t=1397s - The Gospel According to Carrier (Richard Carrier states jesus may have possibly existed, But scrap all the mythology)

Now you directly stated according to YOUR bible "The Bible clearly states that God exists ("For there is one God, And there is one mediator between God and men, The man Christ Jesus" 1 Timothy 2:5)" So that verse clearly without question states "And there is one mediator between God and men" ONE MEDIATOR and it has nothing to do with YOUR god.
"God spoke to Moses through a burning bush" Well according to 1 Timothy 2:5 that"s a lie as only christ is the "one mediator" between god and men so your god did and does not have the ability to communicate to men according to that verse. So which is it? Ah yes, You as a supposed christian, Don"t worry there is no such a thing as a christian and you are solid proof of that as you pick and choose what you want to believe in, However you wish to believe it, To what suits you best and scrap the rest.
Strike 2.

Let"s move on to the supposed trinity which does not in any way prove that your god exists. So you only did yourself a disservice by bringing it up.
Well as proven above, Your christ is proven to be a false prophet, And probably didn"t even exist in the first place, And suppose he did exist, Most certainly had no supernatural powers of divinity/ divine inspiration.
Supposing this christ storybook character did have supernatural powers of divinity/ divine inspiration? Where did he get them from?
Your god most certainly did not grant them unto your savior, Not anywhere in your bible. And you"d have to prove it. Chapters and verses only please from your god granting these powers unto your christ. And supposing this is true according to your bible, So? Nothing from the supernatural has ---ever--- been proved by anyone, Not ever, In the history of the human race.
Btw, Supposing what you say is true, Then you"d have to prove that all of judaism is false. Why? Because all of judaism does not believe in your christ in which is the very difference between christianity and judaism. So go right ahead and prove all---of---judaism---to---be---false.
Oh and darn" let"s add a little spanking to the fisting" KJV "John 5: 16-18 "16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, And sought to slay him, Because he had done these things on the sabbath day. 17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, And I work. 18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, Because he not only had broken the sabbath, But said also that God was his Father, Making himself equal with God. "
Many problems with those verses. 1. 17 So according to jesus, His father, Namely god works on the sabbath. 2. There"s a 0% chance that YOUR god is going to work on the sabbath, NOT ever. Not for any reason. So either 3. Jesus flat out lied thus proving that he is false, The entire NT is false and christianity is false or 4. These verses are misprints in which is the most likely of probabilities in which is supposed to be a perfect book. 5. The entire OT is false which there"s a 0% chance of that if you believe in YOUR god as once again there"s no chance god would ---ever--- work on the sabbath. 6. 18 Notice how jesus himself appoints himself to be equal with god? 7. Again, Where did jesus get the permission from god to do this? 8. Wow. What an egotist. 9. No need to worry. The entire bible screams of god"s superior ego god complex. That"s what the bible is entirely about and nothing else. 10. Again, There"s no proof whatsoever that god and jesus has ---ever--- existed.
So you REALLY THINK ANYTHING IS TRUE about the "trinity"? I hope you have a better arsenal should you decide to continue with this debate.
Should be strike 3

Am out of space to continue with other subjects since DDO only limits a 10, 000 character limit for each argument

Btw, Pay attention to what missmedic stated in his post as he knows A LOT more about god/ religion than you or I BY FAR
it_is_me

Con


Let’s start by making one thing very clear; sticking to the rules that your opponent laid out in their opening statement cannot be dismissed as a “miserable excuse”. If backwardseden doesn’t like the way I neatly avoided some of his arguments then maybe he should have put some more thought into coming up with his original challenge!


Evidence outside of the Bible


Backwardseden objects to the way I used Biblical verses to prove God’s existence. May I remind Backwardseden that it was he who stipulated that his opponent must argue their case using “Chapters and verses only please from either the KJV, NIV, NLT. ” (rule 4) It’s common practice for the challenger to limit the scope of a debate, Particularly on a topic as broad as this one. Backwardseden chose, For arguments sake, To accept the Bibile as evidence (“I did accept your bible as evidence”). I’m happy to approach this topic from a Biblical consistency angle, However please don’t complain because I’ve gone down the path you led me down.


Translations


Next, Backwardseden brings up the issue of translations (although if you want to be pedantic, Using the Bishop’s Bible falls foul of rule 4, As it was clearly stated that only the KJV, NIV and NLT translations were permitted in this debate! ). Modern translations of the Bible go through the same rigorous process of texual criticism as any other text from antiquity. For example, The earliest surviving copy of Pliny’s work dates to 750yrs after it was written, Plato 1200 years and Aristotle 1400 years yet nobody would suggest that the authors of these works never existed simply because we don’t have the original copies and they didn’t write in modern English (reference: https://carm. Org/manuscript-evidence). The examples you give are hardly so garbled that the original message has been lost (for example, Just because KJV & NLT uses the word ‘wise’ whilst ‘prudent’ is found in the NIV doesn’t mean that the original message has been lost as prudent and wise pretty much mean the same thing)


Was Jesus a false prophet?


Backwardseden then argues that Jesus was a false prophet because he didn’t observe the Sabbath rules (I notice that these are all completely new arguments, Presumably because Baclwardseden has little to offer in response to anything I wrote in my previous rounds) If you take another look at Matthew 12 you’ll notice that Jesus didn’t straightforwardly work on the Sabbath but ate some grain. Jesus then uses scripture to explain to the Pharisees why he isn’t breaking the Old Testament laws. Backwardseden needs to explain why they side with the Pharisees in this story and disagree with Jesus’ explanation?


On Youtube Link spamming


Backwardseden provides me with a long list of Youtube vidoes and declares “If you do not watch and take in/ comprehend these videos it means you are unwilling to accept evidence which means you are unwilling to debate


Let’s firstly add up the total length of all these videos: in first post: 40 minutes… 12 minutes…7…14…13…10…10…30=124 minutes or just over 2 hours. Expecting your opponent to watch two hours of videos is unfair because:



  1. When somebody accepts your challenge they are agreeing to read and consider all your arguments, Take the time to respond and do everything they can to make it a good debate. They are not agreeing to spend endless hours watching low quality fundamentalist atheist Youtube vidoes.

  2. As Backwardseden has acknowledged, The word count prevents you from doing a point by point response to each video and even if I were to do so I’m pretty sure Backwardseden would just tell me to educate myself by spending another couple of hours on Youtube. This is trying to win the debate through quantity of arguments than quality.

  3. If I were to provide Backwardseden with a long list of Christian apologetic podcasts he wouldn’t diligently sit through and watch them all. It’s poor conduct to expect something of your opponent that you wouldn’t expect of yourself.

  4. It breaks rule 4 (only Bible verse, Not Yotube links! )


Finally

I’d finally like to remind Backwardseden that the reason I brought up the trinity was in response to one of his arguments – not as a proof for God. I’ve already responded to his 1 Timothy 2 concern – he needs to explain how the burning bush was playing the role of a mediator. Backwardseden's comment of Judaism is a poor one – the existence of a sequel doesn’t make everything in the original book false.


Everything else in Backwardseden’s post is just a massive rant, Often repeating points he’s already made. In Backwardseden’s closing round he will need to look back at his original rules and explain how he thinks his main argument adheres to them.


Debate Round No. 4
backwardseden

Pro

Le boo. I know ever so scary. My opponent is jumping out of his seat because after all, It__Is__Me knows nothing beyond his shallow perch of a squabbling airhead hockey table on fire. That being well said and known by both parties, Let it also be known that since my opponent already has an oblivious, Sorry about the deliberate miss-steak on my part, I meant to say obvious, Two strikes, That one more strike and this debate will thus be over.
Yeppers with a pop gun to my brain, I"ve been more than patient with his floppy unrefined answers that should have rightly ended this debate in the previous RD, So let"s see what he"s got if anything. Hopefully, It will be something intelligent and edumacated rather than a gummy bear sore on the you know where areas. I mean jeez the simpleton moron doesn"t even know how to use a spell check. Sure yours truly makes all kinds of se hablas ingles miss-steaks but they are part of MY English in which I deliberately set up. But for my opponent, It__Is__Me if he were to have ---ever--- entered college his professors/ teachers would immediately give him an F for one, Just one boo boo a la le foot tumble in de mouth. So why on this gangrene earth that he and other supposed christians keep on polluting because that is EXACTLY what it states in their bible by their god that it is perfectly OK to do genesis 1:26, Should I as a responsible person deal with his feeding time? That answer is again, Hopefully there will be something that will be intelligent and edumacated that will come out of his jibber jabbering wings.
"Evidence outside of the Bible"
OK. Let"s play since my opponent It__Is__Me thinks he is so smort, Oh sorry, Yet another deliberate miss-steak on my port, I meant to say smart, Yeah that"s it" And yet my opponent didn"t even *yawn* by golly, Present any because deep down his runny babbit hole of worms and germs he knows there is none.

Moving on"
Translations
Sure! Use---your---bible---as---puking---evidence. But then again, Gosh! I did nail you to the cross and let you forever bleed on it because your stupid unproved god would never, Not for any reason be stupid enough to use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible.

"Modern translations of the Bible go through the same rigorous process of texual"" What on earth is "texual"? Oh I get it, Just like every single so-called christian, You invent excuses to suit you best for what fits you and only you and trash the rest. There is no example. That"s the entire point. You nor anyone cannot trace anything back to the original because none exists. I also gave you completely different translations thus delivering completely and totally different messages in which translations inevitably do at one point or another. Did you even bother to try to circumvent them? No, You just went on babbling on with the lung power of a sleeping platter of a lost dildo. The lesson was to show you that your god, Not for any reason would ---never--- use text with all the mistakes in your bible as proved. Instead DING! Your god would come on down and talk to each and every person on earth to avoid text altogether. Wow. What an idea that was thought of thousands of years ago. If YOUR god can talk to his prophets and thus lie to them as he did in your bible, Then there"s no reason why your god cannot talk to each and every person. UNDERSTAND? Good! Sheesh! Why is it that you so-called christians have such a truly difficult time with your thinking, Rationalizing, Reasoning, Using common sense and using logic behaviors?
Sorry. Strike 3.

Now since you insist that text is valid, At the very least" your bible would be written well in ONE book so that ALL could understand it with NO mistakes.
Bye. I cannot continue with someone who is point blank as unintelligent and as unedumacated as you.

I most certainly have proven that your god does not exist by the stupidity factor alone. So I win this debate like a fluffy dandruff piece of popcorn. You, My opponent, Naturally, Lose.
it_is_me

Con

Backwardseden’s ad-hominem attacks
I was disappointed to see that Backwardseden starts his closing statement with nearly 350 words of name-calling and ad-hominem attacks. Whilst it’s easy to see why this should cost him points for conduct (calling your opponent a ‘dildo’ is hardly good debate etiquette) it should also be a consideration when judging the quality of his arguments. When people resort to screeds so personal abuse it is normally a sign that they have little else to offer – whilst it’s easy to get distracted by Backwardseden’s poor conduct let’s not overlook the fact it’s often done to coverup the fact he doesn’t know how to respond to his opponent’s points. Thus, All my arguments remain unrefuted.

Backwardseden’s new argument
Backwardseden uses his closing statement to bring one brand new argument to the table: “Your god would come on down and talk to each and every person on earth to avoid text altogether. ” I disagree; firstly, The God of the Bible values community (e. G 1 Timothy 4:13) and would therefore favour the most collective and communal form of communication available. Secondly, The God of the Bible wants people to willingly accept his existence (John 3:3) and would therefore favour the least coercive form of communication. I therefore submit to you that Backwardseden is wrong in asserting that “text is the worst form of communication possible.

Spelling & Grammar
I concede that spelling is not my strong point – I tend to type quickly and spend most of my time focusing on the substance of my arguments. Therefore, I will agree to this; if anybody is willing to sit through and fairly judge this debate on all four criteria then I am more than happy for them to vote for Backwardseden in this category. Credit due where credit deserved.

My main argument
In my opening post I presented my main argument. Having had the chance to debate it with Backwardseden I would like to now re-present my main argument in it’s final and updated form:
1. Bible verses, Backed up by chapters and verses, Are the only form of evidence permitted in this debate (rule 4 "Chapters and verses only please") Backwardseden has had plenty of opportunity to correct me if my understanding of this rule is incorrect.
2. Therefore, To prove to Backwardseden that the God of the Bible exists I must provide some Bible verses which backup my claim and demonstrate that the version of God presented in the Bible is logically consistent.
3. There are numerous verses in the Bible that suggest God exists (1 Timothy 2:5, Ephesians 4:6, Deuteronomy 4:35, Nehemiah 9:6, 1 Chronicles 17:20)
4. Backwardseden has failed to find any significant inconsistencies in the Bible
5. Premises 3 & 4 meet the criteria found in premise 2 of my argument.
6. Therefore, I have proven to Backwardseden that the God of the Bible exists.

And finally. . .
Finally, I would like to remind everyone that this debate was conducted using six rules set out by Backwardseden in his opening round. Once you strip out anything from this debate which doesn’t adhere to these rules, I believe that you have no choice but to vote for me as the winner. Thank you for taking the time and having the patience to read this debate right through to the end.
Debate Round No. 5
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@dsjpk5

Great job voting badly.
Keep up the bad work.
Why do you even do this?
Have you got nothing better to do?
I guess not.
To each their own.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
What a close vote!
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@squeakly54n6 - What you don't get is that I threw everything out long long long before the debate even began.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@it_is_me - See? That's why you can't possibly have any genuine friends or loved ones. None. "if rule 4 has '0% of NOTHING to do with anything' then why did you come up with it? " Has nothing to do with anything dimwitted dullard snot meat sow. What YOU said has 0% of NOTHING to do with anything because YOU are THAT STUPID AND IGNORANT. The problem is entirely you and falls into your lap that folds into a bumbling babbling baby brained reject black hole.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
I don't even believe in God but I think Con won. This is due to pro throwing out scientific evidence and logic and just allowing evidence from the Bible which isn't a smart way of tackling this subject. If Pro had allowed the use of logic and scientific evidence, Than Pro would have had a better chance of winning.
Posted by it_is_me 3 years ago
it_is_me
@backwardseden - if rule 4 has '0% of NOTHING to do with anything' then why did you come up with it?
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
"Chapters and verses only please from either the KJV, NIV, NLT. This isn't simply a case of nit-picking over a technicality, " Yeah it has 0% of NOTHING to do with anything because YOU are THAT STUPID AND IGNORANT. Now you go right ahead and you figure out in that atom of a brain you have as compared to the big bang as to what that rule is. DUH!
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@it_is_me - I'm so very glad I don't have to debate a genuine life coach like you who must know the secrets to unlock the very ends of the universe. Wow! Tell me does your dildo vibrate in your tinsel mind-brain?

"however calling me names still doesn't answer my question. " Was answered in my previous post AND at least twice in the dee-bate between you and me, Probably three times. Just because that skull of yours is so-called christian, And you cannot accept a very simpleton answer and it is the equation of 2 + 2 = 5 in your homogenized birdbrain mind, That's not my problem, That's yours. God damn are you *yawn* boring.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Correction
"That is exactly what andymcstab did. Covered only backwardseden's conduct. "
andymcstab barely addressed anything. He/She made claims without supporting it.
Posted by it_is_me 3 years ago
it_is_me
@backwardseden - this may be the third or fourth time, However calling me names still doesn't answer my question.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
backwardsedenit_is_meTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Andy's votes lack nearly any justification at all. It is ridiculous.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedenit_is_meTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con "arrogant". That's poor conduct. Also countering an invalid vote that only addresses one side of the debate.
Vote Placed by andymcstab 3 years ago
andymcstab
backwardsedenit_is_meTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: pro is incoherent as always and breaks his own nonsense rules while con makes coherent arguments and is respectful.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
backwardsedenit_is_meTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con does gain the conduct point. Con did lack conduct as well but Pro was worse. Con used circular logic which is not proof of its existence. What Con could have done is used other more credible sources than the Bible which agree with what the Bible is saying about God's existence but Con did not. This debate was rigged from the start. Either Con was capable of providing evidence which no other person has ever found or Con doesn't. Con didn't. Note that evidence does not have to go through scientific scrutiny to be considered evidence. Con could have asked Pro to define evidence then went on with that but didn't and defaulted to Bible verses.

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