Instigator / Con
7
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4038
The Bible has proven the existence of God
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
4
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Description
Evidence and confirmation of God's existence shall be given, using the Bible as the main source.
Rules:
1. One forfeit is the loss of a conduct point. Two forfeits are an auto-loss.
2. Sources, evidence, and arguments can only be used INSIDE the rounds.
3. The BOP means that Pro must demonstrate that the bible proves God's existence, and Con has to refute it.
Round 1
Preamble:
I shall stick to refuting Pro's arguments which he uses as evidence of the existence of a God, namely using the Bible as his main source.
Burden of Proof:
The rules explicitly state that Pro must prove God exists whereas only I have to refute it. If God is real and the Bible is the true word, then this should be an easy victory for Pro.
Definitions:
Prove- Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
Existence- The fact or state of living or having objective reality.
God- (In Christianity) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
You may go first, Pro.
The Bible has certainly proven God exists to its believers.
You have to at least be a believer when you have the truth or evidence of something.
You can't have evidence but have zero belief.
So just by that regard alone, we have believers and those believers make up a certain percentage the world population. God has been proven . It's just the remaining population yet to discover it.
Just like it's been proven to me about how certain mathematics work or certain algebraic calculations exist .
To those who have yet to know it, particularly young people, young children, toddlers , infants, newborns etc ., makes no difference.
These things have been proven to exist to whom they've been proven to by demonstrations ordinarily out of a text or say a textbook.
So...... likewise....with a book called the Bible demonstrates its equations in some passages that come to mind.
Remember what I said at the very least , something proven to a person, that person is not expected to have no belief in at at the very least . That person looking for proof, a testimony that receives it, at the minimum, they have all the reasons to believe or have faith.
Like the book says , faith comes by hearing the word of God.
It comes in with hearing the Bible.
That's the 10th chapter of the book of Romans by the way.
"17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
Then those that have been convinced by the word, here's what else the book explains about that .
In Hebrews 11
"3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Continuing on with those that understand what is before them, they believe it's a creation put forth by the word of God.
Going back to the book of Romans in chapter one this time.
"19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."
See now getting to them that know.
"20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
Clearly seen is what is empirical.
The Bible proves God's existence by explaining the cause of what proves or what makes known God's existence which would be God.
The Bible which would be the Word of God, the Word or what is spoken of, spoken from God has made it known, made the proof .
So in turn, it's God that has proved God's existence by His Word.
The report of His very word on the creation of the world.
Lastly here, back to Hebrews, I know the audience is watching the tennis ball ping ponging back and forth but I'm just going off the top, off the cuff .
Hebrews 11 and 1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
A repetition here we get with invisibility and faith, now specifically citing evidence.
From faith to knowledge, the invisible to visible.
That's all for now.
Round 2
Pro claims to have proof of God but says it is only accessible to those who already believe.
However, the requirement for me to believe in God's existence is for Pro to present the proof.
"3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."Continuing on with those that understand what is before them, they believe it's a creation put forth by the word of God.Going back to the book of Romans in chapter one this time."19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."See now getting to them that know."20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
What these passages suggest is that God is intentionally keeping me ignorant by hiding or the more obvious conclusion, he doesn't exist.
Clearly seen is what is empirical.The Bible proves God's existence by explaining the cause of what proves or what makes known God's existence which would be God.The Bible which would be the Word of God, the Word or what is spoken of, spoken from God has made it known, made the proof .
Surely, if there is empirical evidence, then Pro is able to show it.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
This is the equivalent of saying "just trust me bro." Faith is belief without evidence. Belief is involuntary.
Pro hasn't proven the existence of God yet.
Well let the games begin.
"Pro claims to have proof of God but says it is only accessible to those who already believe."
I'm not claiming it. I'm giving you what the scriptures says. This is the topic you established. The Bible proves something so I'm showing you what the Bible says.
Now if you refuse access to the evidence, why would it be accessible to you?
"However, the requirement for me to believe in God's existence is for Pro to present the proof."
From the Bible, get it right. Don't move from your own topic goalpost.
"Surely, if there is empirical evidence, then Pro is able to show it. "
Show it from the Bible, the Bible, the Bible. You're trying to shift this on me to present evidence.
The topic is to show where or how the book proves it. You have not refuted any of the scriptures but appeared to have rejected them.
"This is the equivalent of saying "just trust me bro." Faith is belief without evidence. Belief is involuntary. "
You have not understood one word I've said.
"Pro hasn't proven the existence of God yet."
I'm not going to prove it. The Bible does.
The Bible, the Bible, the Bible, the Bible.
Let the record show that this person is shifting the burden from the Bible because apparently it alone is being rejected.
Then why create a topic with you against it other than to reject I guess.
So let me ask, do you reject or are you willing to believe the Bible?
If you are not willing to believe it, then you should of made the topic"There is no evidence for God's existence." Then there would be more options you're willing to accept for evidence because you reject the Bible.
I'm have proven or shown from the Bible the biblical proof that God's existence has been proven to those that accept it by faith onto knowledge by God Himself by His Word.
Now this person doesn't like that because it's not on their own terms. They wanted the proof without becoming so called religious.
It doesn't work sorry. You have to not reject God Himself telling you He does exist and this way you no longer be a fool.
As the scriptures say the fool has said in his heart there is no God .
You shonough is a fool telling me I don't exist when I've been talking to you for the last five minutes.
Nothing personal, I'm speaking in general.
Round 3
This is like arguing, "absence of evidence is not proof of absence." All the verses previously cited by Pro do is just reaffirm the claim of God's existence. They do not present evidence.
"20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
Correct me if I'm wrong, Pro. My understanding is the quote says everything around us is proof of intelligent design and God intervenes in subtle ways which is an indication of his existence.
Current scientific evidence concludes the universe and everything in it do not demand a creator as its source.
"Napoleon asked Laplace where God fit into his mathematical work, and Laplace famously replied "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis.""
Since belief is involuntary, what steps can mankind take to then better comprehend the existence of a creator?
Pro suggests this is impossible without faith.
"3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
So in turn, it's God that has proved God's existence by His Word.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Now Pro has specific complaints with me requesting him to prove God's existence.
Show it from the Bible, the Bible, the Bible. You're trying to shift this on me to present evidence.
Pro has a simple task.: Prove God exists using the bible.
He tries to deflect away from this responsibility. If he cites concrete evidence from the Bible that proves God exists, he wins. No question.
Pro asks the following question.:
Then why create a topic with you against it other than to reject I guess.So let me ask, do you reject or are you willing to believe the Bible?
I will believe the Bible if proof be laid out. Without evidence, I am not inclined to accept it at face value. This isn't a rejection like Pro says. I would assert this is a very reasonable position.
I want to say this first to be sure I get this in this round before responding to anything else which I'm sure will be circular points from the rejecting side.
If I can't get to them due to character limitation, what have to say first will suffice.
In order for the topic statement to be true, God's existence has to be proven.
Does that technically mean proven to all people? No.
Not to newborns, babies and so on. The sun, the moon, different colors , gravity certainly hasn't been proven to them.
God has been proven to those whom God has been proven to.
Where this rejecting side has shot themselves in the foot is by making the assertion the Bible proves it like the book is already a given qualified source to go by .
By doing that , you get beholden or trapped by it. Who are the ones that only rely on the Bible as the Word from God?
Not doubting Thomases. See the doubting Thomas was looking for evidence of Jesus while having an attitude of rejection at the same time.
The moral upon which the Bible teaches is having belief. When you're constantly rejecting, you cancel out having belief .
The evidence is not coming to you before belief does .
Faith is what makes up the evidence of things not seen by which one of those things would be the invisible God .
It's not science, it's not empirical data , it's your open-mindedness first, then witnessing the empirical world around you .
That's why the Bible was the wrong place for you to start coming from your position. It's not a science book.
So yes God has been proven to its believers which clearly aren't every single person in the world.
It doesn't require every single person in the world including you to make the topic statement true.
Round 4
When you're constantly rejecting, you cancel out having belief .
How am I rejecting?
The evidence is not coming to you before belief does .Faith is what makes up the evidence of things not seen by which one of those things would be the invisible God .It's not science, it's not empirical data , it's your open-mindedness first, then witnessing the empirical world around you .
Well, it would seem that the Bible has no proof for God then, at least according to Pro.
Since Pro claims the evidence is not coming first, then by default, that means he is arguing a case that isn't winnable, as Pro has not met his standard for the Burden of Proof yet.
I suppose that settles it then.
Vote Con.
So what the rejecting side has to or should come to realize is that this is not a negotiation.
It's not what you find to be reasonable or about science. The book that you're requesting or requiring proof from is setting the terms.
In order to have the proof that many of its believers have, you have to join them.
Although , the topic statement is true even if it's just one person that God has been made known to.
Now you're probably asking or what you should of been asking this whole time, how can this be verified with the believer or any one believer?
I don't think I gotten this question out of you all this time. But it's like asking to prove the feeling of someone else's pain inwardly . The proof to the other person doesn't exist to you either because you still reject the path towards it without science, there's no connection, it's inaccessible like you say because of rejection of course and you definitely reject it taking the position that there is no proof .
You can't have proof of the feeling of someone else's pain from their body as your body is not connected to theirs.
Like the scripture say when you are "no more strangers, foreigners," not disconnected but reconnected or reconciled to God in the book of Ephesians I believe, you'd be a part of that body.
Hopefully you get what I'm saying. It's all congruent with what has been said thus far on my part.
By implementing the Bible in the topic, you trapped yourself.
Expecting proof from it when the science world holds it as a circular reference.
They say the book itself is yet to be proven in its entirety let alone God.
But then you setup a topic like this as if its already a given authentic source to do the job.
It would have been correct by scientific standards to make the topic statement "You can prove God's existence".
What do you expect from a source that works by faith?
Did you expect it to have a statement in it stating "God exists, this book you're reading proves it". ?
If the Bible is by faith, why would you think it would prove anything?
Do you see where you're trapped?
I only showed the consistency of a faith based book that runs on faith, that explains how any evidence will work for the concern or pertinence to God in that book.
To the atheists in your closed mindedness so called voters, judges, think you're operating in complete truth , you want proof for God from the Bible, it's not on your terms.
Your standards work for what they call a science book.
You actually have to leave atheism and much of the secular world. Those claiming that evidence converting them to belief, it's in contradiction to what religion is .
I wanted to make a debate "Heroes dont have small dicks" with heroes being defined as people who dont have small dicks.
But then I was like, naah. Too much tautology for me.
nvm. You have purposefully defined God as something inherently contradictory in the outer description. I see what you did there.
Then click accept.
Your time’s almost up.
CON has no BoP? Why bother lol
Define "existence" or I will crush you on the basis that you didn't define it in the description. You have 24 hours.
Ah Ah Ah.......naughty naughty. Almost got me there for a second.
; D
As a Christian, I was considering accepting the debate as Con, until I saw that you had already taken that position. I predict that you will either get a bad debater who thinks that the Pro side is somehow defensible, or a good debater trying to run a trick argument to get around your arguments.
Seconded
This is a trap ;)