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

You can be both a scientifically rational person and a christian

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
backwardseden has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,165 times Debate No: 107851
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)




Every scientific fact that is found throughout the Bible is backed up by modern day science and has lasted through almost two thousand years of scrutiny even though that wasn't its intent. Keep in mind what that implies, the Bible which is for our conversation, a collection of historical events, in effect is a history text book covering from the creation all the way to the redemption of the universe, written by 40 different guys over hundreds of years and in it are today's most controversial scientific questions and no errors can be found. Would you expect your history textbook to teach you chemistry or physics? Despite this by looking into the work of many modern biblical scientists you'll find that where scientific ideas are present, those ideas more often than naught explain the world we live in better than many modern scientific theories.


I"m going to let you step into your own puddle of arrogance and p**suare that you have circumvented so you can prove what you claim. All in which is false, of course, as the scientific mind knows.

And no, you will not be able to introduce ANY creationist by rule of default simply because they cannot stand by their product, namely god, because they are smart enough and intelligent enough and edumacated enough, unlike you to NEVER put god on trial again. Why? Because they 100% know that they will 100% lose every single time. Why? Because they know that all they have to go on is faith based oriented and god is solely based upon faith and faith can never be proved. Otherwise god would have been put on trial again.

Oh and oh yeah, you hit a HUGE stumbling block. Prove that YOUR god exists in which NOBODY has EVER been able to do. What tests would you use? How would you demonstrate that YOUR god exists to the entire world? Oh and oh yeah should you find some loophole in rational, reasoning, common sense, logical thinking in which you have none because your religion, bible and printed god presents none, and YOU were able to prove YOUR god in which out of billions on the planet cannot, then you"d be the only sextioniare on the planet. So you must prove that your god exists before you can prove anything scientific from your bible, and yeppers that"s once again by rule of default.

Ah yes, there"s also absolutely no such a thing as being a christian. Have you read YOUR bible? Apparently not. Just like nearly all christians. And please save yourself from coming up with invalid excuses and lies, these verses are as plain as day when YOUR christ orders everybody to give up their families and give up all possessions. And don"t you DARE bother trying to snake your way around it. Now is any sane person going to give up their families FOR ANY REASON? Of course not unless there is severe abuse. But then again if so, god created that family structure as he creates everything. Its either that or god is NOT a god and does not control everything, does not know everything, is not all knowing nor is he all powerful nor is he omnipotent. Oh and btw with a very big dunce and duh to the hammerhead forehead NONE OF THIS IS IN ANYWAY SCIENTIFIC and yet somehow the instigator of this debate must think it is. Wow. OK prove it.
Giving up families...
Matthew 10: 35-37 "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Luke 12 51-53 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Matthew 19: 28-29 "28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

Then christ demands that you give up ALL OF YOUR POSSESSIONS. What idiot is going to do as such and wander the deserts looking for something NOT TO BE FOUND?
Luke 14:33 "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."

Luke 18:22 "Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."
Matthew 19: 28-29 "28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

Matthew 19:21 "21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."

Oh whoops, one more thing if your supposed god were actually a thinking guy (it doesn"t matter if I know this storybook god character exists or not, it matters if you can meet the BOP) and he could redeem himself in any way YOUR christian god would not be stupid enough nor imbecilic enough to rely on text as a source of communication, the worst source of communication possible so everybody can get it wrong with copies upon copies upon copies upon copies with translations upon translations upon translations upon translations with dead languanguages upon dead languages with a 0% chance of being able to trace it back to the original. And even if it could, who is going to interpret it correctly so that ---everybody--- interprets this bible correctly from across the globe?

So let"s review"
1. Prove your god exists
2. All creationists are eliminated by rule of default because they will never put god on trial again because they are not stupid and they know better that god is based upon faith and faith cannot be proved.
3. If you could prove your god exists, you would be the only person that could. So what separates you as being super extra special from the billions of others who have not been able to prove your god exists among everybody who has ever lived?
4. Once again saying that your god exists, he would not be stupid enough to use text as a source of communication, the worst source of communication possible.
5. It is impossible for ---anybody--- to be a true christian unless you get rid of your families and all possessions, leave them behind and follow air.
6. Summing things up, the bible nor christianity is scientific at all. That's just for starters.
Debate Round No. 1


I must apologize to any hoping for a rational and meaningful debate as my opponent seems lost. You see in a debate one person issues a statement and then their opponent then refutes that assertion using logic and fact and while I know that the audience knows this I say this more for the benefit of my opponent. Just to clarify, the assertion that is to be challenged is not Gods existence and is not the Bibles authenticity both of which I would argue for if it was crucial to the debate. Likewise, this is not a dispute over what it means to be a Christian. This debate as defined by its topic is simply can a Christian believe what science has revealed and believe what the bible says. Even if you think that Christianity is fictional you can still debate this topic. It would be the same as asking if any book fact or fiction contained only scientifically evidenced ideas.

I will not try to "convert" you, as you are trying to bait me into because it would be useless to try. No matter what I say or what you say at the end of these 5 rounds I will still be a Christian and you will still be an atheist. There is no point in trying to convince you that my God exists. Instead lets turn this around. I will claim that not only can modern science coexist with the Bible and therefore my God but also that it vehemently disagrees with your god.

That's right the atheists' god. Now I don't assume to say that you secretly believe in another religion or anything so elementary, but that atheism is itself a religion devoted to a god of nothingness and specifically randomness. This is a figure of speech of course since something cannot be nothing, yet it is fully necessary to be an atheist due to the fact that in your pursuit to deny all that would be called god you admit that the entire universe as we know it and everything in that universe has to be created by nothing using only random process. Why? If anything natural had any sign of intrinsic design, that is, it was not made possible by other natural forces but in fact just was, it would be proof of a designer which means, by rule of default you will not only need to explain to me the exact process by which everything in the universe came to be but also how it formed into what it is today down to the origin of everything and all explanations not only need to conform to your own laws of science but also have reasonable probabilities.

Continuing the analogy, if you have a "god" then where is your proof. You'll say science is my proof, but science by pretense cannot prove or disprove anything but can only state what is likely happening or will happen. Everything must be questioned and everything must be assumed to be false, this is the driving force behind science. When we have tested something so many times and in many different ways and it still yields the same result we then assume it is true but even then the truth is only how you interpret the data. In fact your "holy" scripture becomes the collection of data and theories and while these newest discoveries are still being investigated many different scientists can and will interpret the "scripture" differently and even if it is well known people will still debate what it really means for centuries choosing to pick only the "verses" that support their own ideas and ignoring the rest.

We say because the bible says so, you say because the data says so. We say in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. You say in the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. We say that god made all life. You say that all life came by completely random chance.

You insist I can't reference the work of any creationist, and why, because they refuse to argue for themselves. That's just absurd. These are scientists. Their entire line of work depends on them submitting their findings to peer reviewed journals. Every last one of them argues for their faith with their very livelihood. Despite this I will reference for you one of your own "prophets".

Charles Darwin was a brilliant man and yet he is widely misunderstood. First I'll toss you a bone and admit fully that he never claimed that man came from apes, this is complete rumor, however his theory of evolution is not one theory but two combined together. We are all well educated on the ideas and his original theory, "micro-evolution" and it is irrefutable. We see it everyday and in all life and it explains to us what we know as adaptation. However, this does not complete Bio-genesis as his second theory claims it might. To explain:

Science is defined by the idea that nothing is ever fully proved true and must be tested and tried in every way and if it can withstand whatever we can throw at it we assume that our theory was correct and use that insight to investigate further. Pseudo-science however takes the opposite stance, it makes a statement and then argues that it is true and if it is opposed by reason or evidence it must then alter the statement so that it is true again. After all alterations are made you then arrive at the truth of that matter and if you cannot alter it to all conditions then the assumption is either we don't have enough data or it is wrong.

Pseudo-science though often used in a derogatory way, is not inherently a faulty way of thinking. After all many of the original arguments that were made by Freud were often labeled as pseudo-science but while they are now largely refuted by thorough scientific analysis, those same ideas became the launch pad for much of psychology.

Darwin similarly considered the origin of life and pseudo-scientifically theorized that natural selection and adaptation over time can create all life from a single organism. Some will laugh and say evolution isn't Pseudo-science and dismiss this completely but the fact it science by nature only pertains to what we can physically observe and measure. We can do neither as far as the origin of life and therefore is by definition pseudo-science.

Now we are privileged to far more information than Darwin was and through our advances in bio-technology and particularly biochemistry we find that due to the astonishing complexity of every cell and the mind blowing capabilities of the DNA code it is unreasonable to believe that life formed by accident. That statement is not an opinion. When I say that it is unreasonable I truly mean, the idea that DNA, by completely random means, arranged itself into a code so complex that computer scientists dream of mimicking it and can't has such an astronomically low mathematical probability that the very idea is by mathematical definition absurd.

Many scientists agree with this and instead argue that the proteins that make DNA if given enough time could possibly form in the right environment and therefore if these proteins could be made then they could come together in the right sequence, by chance and then DNA could form and life would be possible. However modern science again refutes this possibility as the conditions on the Earth needed for this to be remotely possible were vastly different from those when the origin of life was supposedly dated to or any other time for that matter. The fact that the isomers of the amino acids needed to build these proteins would be just as abundant is also troubling considering they are lethal poisons. If randomness is the sole process then you would need to take the already unthinkably low probability and cut it in half.

Sidney Altman addressed this issue and won a Nobel prize for proposing that if RNA could form then in turn the RNA could direct the manufacturing of the proteins and so on. However for much the same reason his theories are considered, but deemed highly unlikely because of the environment that the RNA would need to endure.

Part of the problem that each of these ideas face is that biochemistry shows us that both the proteins and the DNA needed to exist together and remain separated from each other. You see in the cell we all know that you have the nucleus and inside you have the DNA and that DNA is then copied and sent outside the nucleus as RNA and that RNA is then translated and the code written on it is read by a protein and that protein follows those instructions to make the other types of proteins your body needs to survive. However why do you need RNA why not just copy straight from the original, after all the less copies you have the less likely a mistake is bound to happen. Its because the building materials you need to make the proteins destroy DNA. So in order for proteins to form DNA has to have its protective membrane, the nucleus, but to make the nucleus you need the proteins.

Due to this predicament, evolution, while it can explain adaptation cannot account for the origin of life and even many secular scientists say that ascribing any of this to randomness is far less reasonable than ascribing it to a designer.

In response the famous phrase "life finds a way" was coined but wait, that sounds a lot like faith. Never the less you obviously have the answer since you are the sum of wisdom so please enlighten me, explain to me the things that even noble laureates could not or admit you don't know and therefore tell us that as far as the origin of life goes a Christian can take both science and the Bible seriously.


I only read your first two sentences to realize that I didn't need to read anything else as I am not lost, you are. The only thing that you have to base your god and christianity on is your bible. PERIOD. And your bible has been proven false in every single way possible. Therefore you are wrong and nothing else needs to be stated. But I will... You can't have something leap off the page just because you want it to and thus be true because you want it to. that's ridiculous. It's also quite insane. You can't have an unproven story come true just because you want it to. Also the only thing that you have as far as your bible is concerned is faith. And faith is not scientific. Faith is not a pathway to truth. Faith is a reason people give when they don't have evidence. After all faith is what religion is for every single god. So prove every single god wrong and every single religion wrong. You can't do it. So again your god is not scientific especially when you cannot even prove that he even exists. And it is up to you to prove that he does. So how on Earth are you and your bible being scientific to absolutely know that you are lost? Again I only needed to read your first two sentences.
Debate Round No. 2


Your arrogance is astounding. In fact it maybe the only infinite thing we can observe in our universe. However, if you insist upon this being your only argument I have no problem continuing as I have already addressed the issues you brought forth in my previous argument. You may want to take a look at them if you can make it past the pun that stopped you in your tracks before.

As eluded to at the beginning of this argument, infinity is a concept that is persistently elusive in our physical universe. We know that the universe had a beginning and we also know that it is still expanding but there is a limit to its "bigness" and is therefore finite. Well if we can't get infinitely bigger, what about smaller. You would think that if I cut a line in half I could take that half and cut it in half again and repeat this process forever always having a line half as big as the previous line but that's not true. You see quantum physics as revealed to us that there are limits to how small you can get before you lose the property of locality. Suddenly if you get any smaller than 1*10^-26 cm to be precise you are everywhere all at the same time. Infinity does not exist inside our physical universe. The only other concept that is as elusive as infinity is true randomness and the closest we can get is pseudo-randomness.

That's all well and good but how does it effect what the bible teaches. Well first of all, because of one of my personal heroes, Einstein, who was a firm Jewish believer I might add, we know that we live in more than 3 dimensions. In fact, because of Einstein's theory of relativity we know that we live in 4, back and forth, left and right, up and down, and time. His greatest discovery was that time is a physical property and how we experience time changes due to mass acceleration and gravity. Time is not a constant and is relative to your position in space-time. In fact particle physics has found that "Our universe is but a shadow of a larger reality". This is a quote taken directly from Scientific American in which the article explains that by using particle accelerators scientists have confirmed that we live in at minimum 10 different dimensions, 4 of which are directly measurable and the other 6 are curled in a space smaller than 1*10^-26 cm and therefore can only be inferred by indirect means. Our universe is finite, and not only that but is digital. We know that the universe is composed of atoms and in those atoms you have protons electrons and neutrons. The protons and neutrons make up the nucleus and the electrons then revolve in orbitals around the nucleus. However, of the total volume of the atom less than %99.99 percent of it has any physical mass. If I pointed to a table and said there was nothing there and you pointed to it and said there was I would be %99.99 more correct than you. What we experience as solid is nothing more than the attraction and repulsion of electrical charges. Our entire universe runs on a digital code.

Now a computer scientist would look at that and then look at the universe and say that there was absolutely no rational way that a binary program as complex as the universe could ever just be. There had to be a programmer and that programmer would need to exist outside our dimensions of time and space.

Even so there are those that would say, the bible claims that the universe was created in 6, 24 hour days how then do you explain the measured age of the universe being close to 14 billion years. Put quite simply, both maybe true. If you are at all familiar with Einstein's work you need to ask yourself who's clock are you going off of and where are you taking the measurement from.

14 billion years or six days?

Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 14 billion years of history and those years went by. But how would they be perceived from the Bible"s perspective of time? Looking forward from when the universe was very small " billions of times smaller " the Bible teaches that six days passed. In truth, they both are correct. What"s exciting about the last few years is that we now have quantified the data to know the relationship between the perception of time from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons (their nucleosynthesis), looking forward and our measure of the history of the universe. It"s not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same generalized number. The general relationship of the stretching of space between the era of proton anti-proton formation, that time near the beginning at the threshold energy of protons when the first stable matter formed, and time today is a million million. That"s a 1 with 12 zeros after it. Space has stretched by a million million. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I"m sending you a pulse every second," would we see a pulse every second? No. We"d see one every million million seconds. That"s the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe on the perception of time.

The biblical text shows us (and the Talmud confirms) that the soul of Adam was created five and a half days after the big bang creation. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. How would we see those days stretched by a million million? Five and a half days times a million million, gives us five and a half million million days. Dividing that by 365 days in a year, comes out to be 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of just under 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is extraordinary. The universe is billions of years old but from the biblical perspective those billions of years compress into five and a half, 24 hour days.

This excerpt is by Nuclear Physicist, and Doctor of Earth Sciences and Physics, Gerald Schroeder who also taught and MIT for 5 years before moving to Israel and while he is a creationist his work has been proved mathematically sound by many other secular scientists and has been lectured on at multiple universities around the country. He goes on to mention that since this discovery a colleague pointed out that he forgot to account for the increase in the expansion rate, after doing to his results change from 15 billion years to 13.6 billion. The current age according to the WMAP is currently 13.7 billion.

Still others will comment, and say what about the fossil record. Using the fossil record is not a reliable way to date the Earth and it come down to how different fossils and rock layers are dated. They are estimated by the assumption that evolutionist Bio-genesis is true even though as stated in my previous argument it has not been proved to be and is built off of completely circular reasoning. Example: How do you know that fossil is 6 billion years old? Well because it was found in the 6 Billion year old rock layer. OK how do you know how old the rock layer is? Well because we found the 6 billion year old fossil. It completely falls apart. On top of this we know that fossilization is very rare process and can only occur under extreme amounts of pressure like the kind that would be created from, oh I don't know, a global flood. That's crazy except by studying the angle at which the all the different rock layers from we find that they could only form under water. Not only this but we have found that some of the fossils still have in tact tissue which implies almost instantaneous fossilization.

Not only does this support a biblical view but studies done on the salinity of the oceans, the half life of the Earths magnetic field, the thickness of the moon dust layer, and the rate of sediment deposition of the Mississippi river delta all imply a young Earth.

Still atheistic science will never acknowledge any of these and why, because you need billions and billions of years for evolution and instead of teaching what science has shown us, people like you would have us remain in the dark, forever unaware of any opinion other than your own. You would rather propagate bad science and force a lie to be taken as truth, rather than admit that your god of nothingness might not exist.

However, I am not a madman, nor will I be willingly ignorant nor do I hold what I believe to be true as unquestionable. I will not close my mind to reason and I will consider whatever is proposed to me but I will test it and see if it is true. You claim that Christians who believe in the Bible or God are fools and close-minded people but you are hypocritical in saying so and contradict yourself. You claim that we close our eyes to science and the reality of the world and but how much have you really looked into and proved to yourself, or do you just listen to another and take their word for it. You have as much faith in your textbooks as we Christians have in the Bible. Everything that science has built as far as astronomy and biology relies on the idea that the Earth has to be billions and billions of years old and yet physics both particle and cosmological, astronomy, biochemistry, computer science, chemical oceanography, and geography all point towards the biblical account of creation and make absurd your notion of a god of nothingness and randomness. As for me and millions of others, we look at the universe and we don't see randomness, confusion, and chaos but the absolute beauty of a highly skillful design.


Your stupidity is astounding. Arrogance is the only infinite thing in the universe well that's according to you. That's why christian prison shell shocks like you are born yesterday. The sun does shine brighter where you can't breathe.

In your previous argument you mentioned a lot on Charles Darwin and you do realize that evolution is taking place right here and right now gosh golly gee gosh darn it all so therefore it's an absolute fact. Now you go right ahead and you look up "superbug". 1. A pathogenic bacterium that has developed immunity to antibiotics or an insect that has developed immunity to insecticides. "Has developed" means evolution buddy boy.

And you mentioned the "atheist god"oh that's a good one do try harder please in the next infinite Universe and invent better excuses please because all christians like you do because you do not know any better as you twiddle your thumbs between your cabbage batbrain as there's no such thing as an atheist god after all atheists don't even have a book to base anything on so how can atheists have a God to believe in which is the very definition of atheism. Atheists don't believe in a god. Your excuses are like a nun's pep rally.

Then you stay everything must be assumed to be false. Eeeeeedhhhtttt bbzzztttttt wrong, not if it's a mathematical equation. 2 2 will always equal 4 no matter which language you speak. Your christian god can always be proven false no matter which language you speak.

Now here's something you don't get.. Any good scientist at any good atheist will always say "I don't know". Those are terrorists words to christians because dare their god not be perfect of course not. And the christian Solution to something is "therefore god must have done it." That in no way is scientific.
Debate Round No. 3


Taking statements out of context seems to be a key component to your arguments. First I said and I quote "Your arrogance is astounding. In fact it maybe the only infinite thing we can observe in our universe." Note I did not say arrogance in a general sense but specifically yours. This has nothing to do with what you do or do not know about science and is purely based on the fact that you are on a website for civil debate and openly admit that you are unwilling to take any argument made against you seriously and instead fill the page by typing out strange noises and groans. In fact, based on your statement "I only read your first two sentences to realize that I didn't need to read anything else as I am not lost, you are." I and the audience can assume that you didn't even put forth the effort to consider my argument.

Let me remind you of a few things in a more concise way so that you don't have to bore yourself by reading over the entire argument and you can continue to skim over any of the parts you don't like.

First the universe is finite whether you like it or not. Currently the measured radius is about 46.5 billion light years and the current estimate of the expansion rate is 68 km/sec. The universe is very large but not infinite. To have a beginning of the universe aka the big bang the universe has to be finite.

Second I am well aware of the super-bug and I don't need to be retaught on it. However, I have already accepted this and prove that it has no effect on my argument. Why, because adaptation and bio-genesis are two different theories. I myself stated "Charles Darwin was a brilliant man and yet he is widely misunderstood. First I'll toss you a bone and admit fully that he never claimed that man came from apes, this is complete rumor, however his theory of evolution is not one theory but two combined together. We are all well educated on the ideas of his original theory, "micro-evolution" and it is (this is key) irrefutable. We see it everyday and in all life and it explains to us what we know as adaptation. However, this does not complete Bio-genesis as his second theory claims it might." When I say evolution, understand that I'm not talking about adaptation but only bio-genesis. I'm assuming that your pointing this out because of my comment on the fossil record. Well I'm glad you brought it up. Let me ask you this, how many stages were there between the first "sea creatures" and the first birds. Nobody knows. The entire idea that all of life could come from a single organism is entirely based on evolutionist bio-genesis being true. In fact no matter how far we look back in the fossil record we have all of the diversity of life the entire time. What do we see from that, well quite simply while everything is evolving nothing is evolving into something else. A cat is a cat whether it be a lion or a tabby. Both are very different and adaptation shows us why but no matter how different they may become they are both still cats. Evolution presents the idea that if we give it enough time the cat might eventually turn into a bird or that a fish could turn into a dog. Along with my argument on DNA you would also need to address that no matter how far you look back there is no sign of the "missing link" between any animals. In simple terms despite large-time there is no proof of your original prime organism that became both a dog and a fish or whatever. You can trace back any animal only to the original of that animal and there is no connection of the originals but because science assumes evolutionist bio-genesis to be true they keep searching because there "has to be" even though the reason there would have to be hasn't been proved.

Third, I'll give you a recap of what I really said about the Atheists god. "Now I don't assume to say that you secretly believe in another religion or anything so elementary, but that atheism is itself a religion devoted to a god of nothingness and specifically randomness.(This part is key) This is a figure of speech of course since something cannot be nothing, yet it is fully necessary to be an atheist due to the fact that in your pursuit to deny all that would be called god you admit that the entire universe as we know it and everything in that universe has to be created by nothing using only random process. Why? If anything natural had any sign of intrinsic design, that is, it was not made possible by other natural forces but in fact just was, it would be proof of a designer which means, by rule of default you will not only need to explain to me the exact process by which everything in the universe came to be but also how it formed into what it is today down to the origin of everything and all explanations not only need to conform to your own laws of science but also (need to) have reasonable (mathematical) probabilities." Of course atheists don't believe in a god that's what a-theist means. Theist being someone who believes in god and a- meaning opposite of. Therefore you are literally the opposite of someone that believes in god.

However, that does not stop me from taking what you believe and assigning a god to it as purely a figure of speech to help communicate my point. It's a rhetorical device that just happens to fit rather well.

Forth, I'll admit I was not as precise as I should have been when I said everything must be assumed false. Allow me to clarify, Science if it is to work at all needs to be willing to question everything and therefore everything that is already thought to be known must be tested and proved before it is considered correct which is why we have mathematical proofs. Even that which has been "tested and proved" must be questioned and why? because people make mistakes and so you test and prove it in other ways. If you find a test that doesn't work you need to find out why. Its the tests that don't work that advance science, not just the ones that do. Not to mention any student knows that while science relies heavily on math, mathematics and science are two different fields. Also if your thinking you can prove the existence of infinity within our universe because we have the mathematical concept of infinity your just wrong. Math is not physical it can only help explain the physical.

Fifth, do I believe that God created the universe, absolutely. Do I know how he did it, hardly. I am not so arrogant to assume I have all the answers however for me there is enough evidence to believe it didn't happen by accident. I will fully admit there are things that I do not know.

Even so this is all besides the point. Again I don't need to prove that my God exists or that the Bible is authentic. Based on the topic of the debate, all I need to do is show that science has not disproved the bible and therefore a Christian can take both, what the data says happened and what the bible says happened seriously. Even if you do find something that doesn't seem to add up, which you haven't, as long as there are enough things that do it would be irrational to throw out the entire thing so as far as this topic goes I don't even need to prove all of it. All I need to do is show that there is more on my side than against it.

Just a special something for you, I see you graduated from an art institute. You don't state your degree however I will congratulate you on it anyway, after all any level of higher education is an accomplishment worth acknowledgement and disagreements aside I do mean this. Nevertheless because it was an art institute I assume you are familiar with at least a few different media types. I draw using soft pastels, charcoals, ink and graphite myself and specialize in landscape all purely as hobby but I have to ask, if you are an artist can you honestly believe that if you dish out enough media into a bag with a piece of paper/canvas and swish it around long enough you'll be able by random process to create anything beautiful or meaningful. Thinking back on the hours of pain staking effort I put into my best pieces I just can't rationalize it. Randomness creates more randomness, and order and structure cannot be created by randomness.


"Your arrogance is astounding. In fact it may be the only infinite thing that we can observe in our universe." Wow. I don't take statements out of context, you, like your bible and god of print only cannot speak clearly - choirboys spewed ashes. Now how am I supposed to take that seriously? Of course I've been willing because it's so amazing laughable and stupid.

Civil debate? When you invent excuses or something in which you clearly know nothing about and have no knowledge upon and claim is your strong suit, namely christianity, and because you have to fumble and tumble your way through it and thus pretend that you do, namely the typical christian that you knowingly are, but in fact nobody is by the very definition of what christ has said in the bible, you stand at a complete loss. This is something that you will learn in college. And if you do that type of crap to your teachers it will immediately be an instant f. And if you do that type of crap to your friends and loved ones you will soon have no friends and loved ones. Try it.

The superbug proves evolution. It is in absolutely no possible way proves cristianity because it has evolved beyond your god's original creation of imperfection. And once again you cannot even prove your god even exists. Wow.

But I am glad that you mentioned nobody knows because nobody does know. But see christians in their rotting domains, claim that they do know or at least they are supposed to know. That's what the bible is for and it is according to christians that they cannot be proven wrong. After all that is what they're bible is for. And that is what their god is for. Dare the christian god ever be proven wrong and imperfect? Of course not. And yet in the Bible he constantly is what a joke.

But here you come along and claiming you are christian which is indeed a load of concocted BS because nobody is a true christian and you decide to go it alone and do your whatever's because you feel like it. And gee how many o-called christians will flat out funk you and disagree with you because you cannot agree with them as you falls down the stairs all the time and you have a log attached to your brain.

Now if you wish to find out about what a true atheist is, no problem all you got to do is simply right here on your debate, because I don't feel like making any efforts because there's no need is look at your comments section, and scroll on down to the third comment and wah lah bingo there's a video of what an atheist is and it's irrefutable no matter how many invented excuses you come up with and flat-out lies you come up with.

Now you have come up with a lot of things that are scientific. But what on earth does that have to do with christianity? I mean so what especially when you cannot prove your god. And especially when you cannot get a good translation of your B
bumblinge and interpret it correctly.
Debate Round No. 4


If you want to be an atheist you have every right. However that is true for being a Christian as well. This debate has nothing to do with what we believe or why, because belief itself, is something that you cannot determine for someone else with any amount of fact. It is entirely about whether that belief is justified. If you truly wanted to believe everything around us was an accident, I can only give you the reasons I don't buy into that. Again this debate is, can a Christian believe science not can you be a Christian. Christianity depends on belief and even if it's wrong I can still believe its true. It doesn't make it true and I will not claim that my belief validates anything. I am nothing, who cares who I am, but if I am to believe in Christ and believe in science they must be able to coexist. That is the debate. With that said am I justified in my claims?

The answer is yes. The data, shows us that. However to be a Christian we must take the interpretations that you have formed based on that data and test them to see if they are true. The data has no opinion, scientists however do and to take their word for it would be to deny ourselves our right too personally believe. These are not excuses, they are rational, reasonable, beliefs.

You will say that based on the data you believe such and such and I do the same, that doesn't matter. If I take the Bible and the data I have no issues. If I do please let me know and I will seek the answer for myself.

Put another way you say that adaptation disproves Christianity because it changes what God originally made. The only way that works is by admitting that He made it. If that's true any Christian wouldn't have any issue with adaptation. If I design something to have the ability to change and adapt to it's surroundings, and it does so, am I suddenly not it's creator? Of course I am. The same would be true of God, again if he created it. To prove he didn't then becomes your burden of proof in trying to change my belief which science has been unable to do. This is quite a statement but I have already explained why it's true time and time again in this debate.

Science is not truth, science can only lead us to it. It is a means, not an end, what you believe that end is depends on you alone. If you want to believe that everything is a product of randomness so be it but I cannot rationally justify that and therefore choose not to believe it.

I do not invent excuses for my God. All I have done throughout this debate is tell you about the science, that you unjustly believe proves me wrong. To clarify this isn't about morals only evidence and justification. Even if the bible didn't exist all the data still would. Even so what you believe was on the other side of the big bang, bio-genesis, or whatever doesn't matter to the debate, I choose to say it was God and can justify my reasoning and therefore I am a scientifically educated, rational, Christian.

Is Christianity based on faith, sure. All belief is based on faith, it doesn't matter if it's a religious belief or not. When I go to sleep I believe that I will wake up, even when there's a chance I won't but I have faith that I will, why, because I have for as long as I've been alive. That doesn't make it true. If you believe that the world was created from random process and fill in the gaps with statements like "life finds a way" it doesn't make it true but you have faith that it is. If you deny all faith you deny all belief, not only in religion but humanity, science, civilization, morality, and even yourself.

You believe that the laws of science won't change tomorrow but can't prove it, there is no evidence that says they won't but because it's never happened before you have faith that they won't and that is your justification for your belief and it's true, yet because you cannot prove it you must have faith. Will they? I doubt it, but I won't dismiss the idea either, I just won't believe it.

In fact, if you take the law of entropy seriously which states that everything in the universe has the tendency to move from an ordered state to a more chaotic one, biology has an issue. This law is true across every other science except evolutionist biology. Why the exception? After all, we are all made out of the same stuff. What makes life so special that our atoms and molecules decided not to behave way back when.

Every living thing we find has what an engineer would call irreducible complexity meaning you can't take anything away from it or the system wouldn't work. Still evolutionist biology says that all these systems need to be a product of building each up, one step at a time. The problem with that should be obvious, dead animals don't evolve. You take any animal and you will find that there are biological functions unique to them that require multiple systems working simultaneously in order for that animal to survive. You take any of those away and say this one developed first, and then the next one, and the animal dies. They all have to be there the entire time and fully functional or else those genes can't be passed down. Despite this, you still claim evolution is the answer and will make excuses for it. Which again is fine, I just don't buy it. Even in single celled organisms we see this and so based on science and nothing else I can say confidently that I am justified in my beliefs and can be a scientifically rational Christian.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nicholaspanda 3 years ago
@Lathian3, your responses were beautiful. Moreover, I would've blown up in frustration; good job!
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
I have posted several times more than several times actually YouTube videos and several links and several verses of your honking bible o a sniveling little rabbit like you in which you do not examine any little slice of evidence of anything at all about your bible and granny fart evil hateful god and religion of anything at all ever that I have posted to you so no you've had your chance you blew it. I'm really tired of repeating myself. Now you go backwardseden and you look at all the debates that you've checked me out at. Now you go back and you look at all the YouTube videos that you've deliberately did not vide for absolutely no reason at all and you have a nice long look at those k snukkums? That's a good lost little sheepish bore. Now you go back and you look at all the verses that you missed and you look at those and then you realize what Pure Evil and hate they are and if you don't realize what evil and hate they are then you are as immoral just as your god is. Now you look at all the quotes from other people that I've quoted and you look at those in which happen to be enlightening and correct. And then you look at all the other links that I posted and then you look at those. I'm not going to repost the same damn thing to an idiot like you who refuses to examine evidence, Rock Solid evidence. You are a true true true true true typical christian that cannot handle any true evidence when slapped in the face with it. Goodbye and don't ask me the same damn question again. I'm tired of you and your sickening questions. You've been proven wrong time and time again and you just can't handle it. I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say.
Posted by LeeJohnson 3 years ago
@backwardseden, explain to me where you got your evidence. The Bible never implicitly or explicitly endorses such a position based on hate and evil. This is a lie.

Just because you can't prove something doesn't make it "contradictory" or "hypocritical." With that logic, you'd have to think questions like these are "contradicting":

1. Can we eliminate cancer - not answered
2. Why do we dream - not answered
3. Are we the only humans in the universe - not answered

How are these questions contradicting? Something can't be contradicting if it yet hasn't been proven - your wrong, again, as usual.

Honestly, message me if you have something intelligent to post.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@LeeJohnson - Ah OK. You are a believer in corruption and hate and evil and jealousy as well as evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage and fury in which your god has freely admitted to and you don't even have a scrub of evidence for your god's existence which is contradictory and hypocritical.
Oh darn once again you going to turn down yet more evidence that slaps you in the face? Sure. Be my guest. And you wonder why I put an X on your checkbook. And here is EXACT evidence and a PURE definition as to what an "atheist" is. - Reasons for accepting atheism. Have fun.
Posted by LeeJohnson 3 years ago
@backwardseden, ah, okay. You do believe in God - you just hate that he has done so many corrupt things.

You're not an Atheist; you're agnostic.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@LeeJohnson - Well well well well not very bright of you now is it? Um no I'm not taking ANY bible verses out of context, because you with your big brain an monstrous big bile superior ego if you could prove yourself correct, and me wrong at all costs, you would have done as such. So why haven't you? It's because you can't and you know it.
Its in the bible that you believe? What's in the bible that you out of billions believe because there's no consensus - even going from church to church. "And you said it best "To me, and to so many others (including non-believers), we don't understand each other's views. That leads to bias and misinterpretations, causing confusion on all sides of the discussion." Which is the exact to the letter why I will never believe even if god had the guts to show his face to me. And of course you do also know that YOUR christ is the most fought after figure in history with at least 1 billion dead all in his good name. So why believe? See you cannot come up with a good answer.
Nope I am not contradicting myself when I say I hate god. Have you read the bible? Nope. Clearly not. It is the belief in this god that causes all this evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy - emotions freely admitted to by this supposed god in the bible proving he's imperfect. Jealousy? Jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear. Even worse is this supposed god neatly passed down those emotions down to man so in turn man could learn to hate. Great going god. Great going you for worshiping this supposed god.
And wow, you talk to me about contradicting myself? But you are most assuredly contradicting yourself. You say you believe in god and yet you, nor anybody can prove this supposed god even exists.
Posted by LeeJohnson 3 years ago
@backwardseden, I have a reason for following Christ's teachings. To me, a lot of questions scientists have been pondering for years are answered in the Bible. Of course, your belief is as valid as mine - but I do disagree with your irrationality.

Stop quoting your arrogant celebrity atheists. To be honest, they ALL take passages out of context. Some of the questions they ask are really confusing or reprehensible.

To me, and to so many others (including non-believers), we don't understand each other's views. That leads to bias and misinterpretations, causing confusion on all sides of the discussion.

I'll be ignoring the insults, honestly.

Oh, and one more thing, you're contradicting yourself when you say you "hate god," because how can you hate someone when you don't believe they exist?

Answer that for me.
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
Go PRO! Go PRO! Go PRO!!
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@LeeJohnson - Well gosh with a snap jilly hill to your rectum with a slaughterhouse in tow, as usual you being the teeny bopper that you are and not having a single genuine friend or loved one which is a HUGE red flag AND you believe in god for no reason at all, as you, just like everybody else cannot even prove this corrupt evil hateful, as described in YOUR bible, god even exists. So as usual your chew rag is out of squishy taffy stuck to a table for years, and this debate, tried, but died because its author, like you does not have the ability to think, reason, rationalize, use common sense, nor use logic. I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
H2O drink it...p.. it..Thats it..The rest is just water on botles made by man..
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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