Instigator / Pro
7
1584
rating
29
debates
70.69%
won
Topic
#5645
Christian god cannot be real
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Moozer325
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
4
1389
rating
413
debates
44.55%
won
Description
Christian god as described in the Bible cannot exist.
By accepting this debate you also accept that the Bible is either the complete word of god or the Bible is completely made by mankind. There’s not saying that some scriptures are real and others are not. No picking and choosing.
Primary burden of proof rests with Pro. Pro must prove that he is impossible and Con must prove that he is at least somewhat possible.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you Con for accepting this debate
God is Perfect
The Bible has many instances where it describes God as perfect:
Matthew 5:48: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
"He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he."
The Bible is also supposed to be the word of god. This was in the description, so you can’t refute it, but here’s a quote anyway:
Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching…
My first argument is pretty simple.
Premise 1: Christian God is perfect
Premise 2: The Bible is the word of god.
Premise 3: The Bible has Contradictions
Premise 4: Contradictions are Imperfect
Premise 5: Christian God is real
Conclusion: At least one of the previous Premises must be false.
To summarize, if Christian God is real, then he is perfect and the Bible is his word. The Bible has contradictions and contradictions are imperfect, so either the Bible is not his word, which doesn’t make him Christian god, or he isn’t real.
You accepted premise 2 by accepting this debate, and I’ve already basically proved that the Bible says God is perfect, so it will be hard to dispute Premise 1.
Premise 4 is also going to be near impossible to dispute, because contradictions are so obviously not perfect, so that leaves just premise 3 and 5 which can be wrong. My goal for the rest of this argument is to prove that premise 3 is correct, and by that logic, premise 5 is incorrect.
Here are some basic contradictions:
Genesis 1:1-2:3: God creates plants on the third day, and man and woman on the sixth day.Genesis 2:4-25: Man is created before plants and animals, and then woman is created.
Matthew 27:5: Judas hanged himself.Acts 1:18: Judas fell headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines spilled out.
Exodus 33:20: No one can see God and live.Genesis 32:30: Jacob says he saw God face to face, and his life was spared.
That alone should be enough, but the Bible even goes on to dispute modern science.
Now, I know that my opponent is going to dispute that the theory of evolution is correct, because I’ve had that debate with him before.
Either way though, I’m still going to try. There is overwhelming evidence that proves the process of natural selection.
It can be observed in labs with viruses, and the fossil record also supports this.
but apart from the theory of evolution, the Bible contradicts even more science that is even more impossible to refute.
The Bible doesn't make any mention of planets, or other celestial bodies besides the sun, moon and stars. Why would it only mention god's creation of the earth and not the rest of the universe?
The bible says that the earth is stationary:
"The Lord established the earth on its foundations so it will never move." Psalm 104:5
The bible implies that the earth is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old, when studies show that it is most likely much more than that.
And biggest of all, it strongly implies a flat earth, which is just not true.
Job 38:13-14: "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth...
Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor'
To explain that last one, it would be impossible to see everywhere on the earth when on a spherical earth, and even if "God" didn't mean everywhere by "all kingdoms" then it would still be extremely hard to see that far on a spherical earth.
Conclusion
The Bible contradicts many proven facts of modern science, and even contradicts itself. If the Bible is truly the word of God, and God is a perfect being, then his word would not have contradictions. Seeing as premises 1,2, and 4 are either accepted already or are near impossible to disprove, and that I have just effectively proved premise 3, premise 5 must be the incorrect one, and so Christian God as described in the Bible cannot be real.
Thank you for accepting Con, I yield the floor.
Con
#2
*****These points have been formulated prior to the opposing side posting any text in the first round.********
"Con must prove that he is at least somewhat possible."
So what I get from this is proving that there is a possibility of God existing.
Being that it hasn't been disproven of this God existing, it opens up the possibility as far as we know.
We only know what has been proven to us.
How did everything get here ?
There's a possibility for a designer of all things just as the reality of what a designer is and does is demonstrated.
This ties into cause and effect. Does it not?
The opposing side mentions "Christian god" as described in the Bible. The opposing side may wish to specify better than this.
There is nothing in the Bible or more accurately the scripture that describes anything as "Christian god".
The scripture does describe a god that does exist and is proven to exist . That is anyone that fits the description that Jesus talked about.
That god actually does exist.
The Bible also describes God whom have made all things in the book of John which applies to the possibility of the designer.
"Premise 3: The Bible has Contradictions
Premise 4: Contradictions are Imperfect"
So imperfect contradictions means what? No contradictions at all .
"Conclusion: At least one of the previous Premises must be false."
I'll follow this up with the following:
"Premise 3: The Bible has Contradictions
Premise 4: Contradictions are Imperfect"
Take your choice . Either the scripture has contradictions or it doesn't. Which has to be proven either way.
"The Bible has contradictions and contradictions are imperfect, so either the Bible is not his word, which doesn’t make him Christian god, or he isn’t real."
Either the book has contradictions (perfect) or it doesn't(imperfect).
Stating it has contradictions but they're imperfect contradictions in of itself is a contradiction. Matter of fact , it's a perfect contradicted statement.
"Here are some basic contradictions:
Genesis 1:1-2:3: God creates plants on the third day, and man and woman on the sixth day.
Genesis 2:4-25: Man is created before plants and animals, and then woman is created."
To see your honesty in all this, please quote verbatim the actual verse you're looking at to plead your case on this . Don't paraphrase or summarize so we can be accurate and exact.
Thanks.
"Matthew 27:5: Judas hanged himself.
Acts 1:18: Judas fell headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines spilled out."
Matthew 27:5
" And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."
Acts 1:18
" Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."
I don't see a contradiction so the opposing is correct that it's an imperfect contradiction. To perfect a contradiction, it has to exist.
Maybe you the opposing side wish to argue why these two verses oppose or couldn't line up together.
Warning: Once you do argue, it will reveal your personal interpretation as opposed to the verbatim context.
Which is basically why people conclude there are contradictions.
"Exodus 33:20: No one can see God and live.
Genesis 32:30: Jacob says he saw God face to face, and his life was spared."
Now this is a classic purported contradiction.
Off the top, John 6:46 harmonizes it right up.
No one, not just anyone, except he that is of God.
John 6:46
"Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."
Jacob was of the Father.
Here's what it is. Those that believe there are biblical contradictions do not comprehend or obviously have a lack of biblical knowledge.
2 Timothy 2 and 7
" Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things."
If you take the scripture beyond just face value but really think much more into it, you will get understanding.
But when you're rejecting or trying to disprove God or the bible, how are you going to receive understanding from the one you're arguing to prove false?
Your understanding is not found because your lost.
2 Corinthians 4 and 3
"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost"
So trying to disprove God will always appear that his non existence is true.
A scripture came to mind I believe, seek him while he may be found.
You're not seeking the truth when you're going the opposite way to discredit and disprove.
So these things will always appear as contradictions with a closed mind and void of consideration.
"There is overwhelming evidence that proves the process of natural selection."
If you ever so decide to consider scripture, even it backs up the ever changing traits of mankind via migration of people throughout the world and the development of many nations.
Starting from Genesis I believe, a man and his three sons to Acts , all nations made of one blood(common ancestor).
"The Bible doesn't make any mention of planets, or other celestial bodies besides the sun, moon and stars. Why would it only mention god's creation of the earth and not the rest of the universe?"
So we consider more again that the scriptures will generalize many things and make not mention of many specific things.
We have the book of John 21:25.
"If they should be all recorded one by one [in detail], I suppose that even the world itself could not contain (have room for) the books that would be written."
The scripture is not a science book , encyclopedia but in the book of Timothy it tells you what it's for , particularly what it's profitable for.
Throughout the scriptures we learn these writings were given to man so everything pertains to mankind where mankind is. The focus is not so much on anything outside that with science, chemicals, the periodic chart, physics, quantum mechanics.
You want specifics on science, chemistry, biology, check out a science book for starters. Even a science book most likely won't have all the branches of science in all details. So you go reading up on a chemistry book or research specifically astronomy.
The scripture is dealing primarily with a divine revelation message to man involving what's called the gospel.
But the scriptures will briefly generalize everything outside of us here on earth. Consider 1 Corinthians 15 and 40.
"There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another."
The reason you'll find the scriptures insufficient for all these other things is due to going beyond the divine message received in ministration.
Otherwise sufficiency would be found in the word alone and perfect as it states in Psalm 19:7 and the former point in 2 Corinthians 3 and 5.
" Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God"
"The bible says that the earth is stationary:
"The Lord established the earth on its foundations so it will never move." Psalm 104:5"
You say "stationary" while the scripture you gave didn't even say that.
Psalm 104 verse five says " You set earth on a firm foundation so that nothing can shake it, ever."
Your interpretation you have of "stationary" means what? No movement. Ok no movement from where?
This thing can't be moved or shaken out from where it is.
It cannot be removed .
Psalm 104:5 "Who laid the foundations of the earth, That it should not be removed for ever."
"The bible implies that the earth is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old, when studies show that it is most likely much more than that."
Just one word against another.
"And biggest of all, it strongly implies a flat earth, which is just not true.
Job 38:13-14: "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth...
Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor'
To explain that last one, it would be impossible to see everywhere on the earth when on a spherical earth, and even if "God" didn't mean everywhere by "all kingdoms" then it would still be extremely hard to see that far on a spherical earth."
Can't really go any where with this unless you find scripture that states one way or the other, not implications.
Isaiah said "circle of the earth".
Then there's a question of the devil whom is a deceiver making an appearance of all these things. But by permission and authority of God can make all these things possible.
As written in Luke 4 and 6 "And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to."
So by permission and authorization. Another point is "all kingdoms of the world" is obviously different verbiage compared to " of all the world all over the world". Just like all parts or branches of federal government of the states . Doesn't necessarily mean the same in translation.
All kingdoms or all branches can still be headquartered in a single place. In this case it can be just the wilderness since it says this is where he was tempted for that specific duration of time.
See this is what is meant by consideration. Once you start considering these things, all these facets and questions come up and can be explored. But you have to be willing and seeking.
"The Bible contradicts many proven facts of modern science, and even contradicts itself. If the Bible is truly the word of God, and God is a perfect being, then his word would not have contradictions. Seeing as premises 1,2, and 4 are either accepted already or are near impossible to disprove, and that I have just effectively proved premise 3, premise 5 must be the incorrect one, and so Christian God as described in the Bible cannot be real."
The honest conclusion, nobody has proven the bible nor the God of it false. That's why we're still here talking about it. Now the supposed contradictions are just conflicting the particular reader's subjective reasoning. You have to remove all secular biases.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Stating it has contradictions but they're imperfect contradictions in of itself is a contradiction. Matter of fact , it's a perfect contradicted statement.
You misunderstand me. The contradictions aren't imperfect, the fact that they are in the bible makes the Bible imperfect, which does not make sense if Christian God is perfect.
Stating it has contradictions but they're imperfect contradictions in of itself is a contradiction. Matter of fact , it's a perfect contradicted statement.
Same thing, the contradictions are not imperfect contradictions, they make the Bible imperfect by being in it.
Matthew 27:5" And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."Acts 1:18" Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."I don't see a contradiction so the opposing is correct that it's an imperfect contradiction. To perfect a contradiction, it has to exist.
How can you not see a contradiction? Judas can't have died two ways, yet the Bible clearly says he died in two different ways without acknowledging the other death or providing any explanation. For Christian God to be real, the whole Bible must be his word, and so must be true. It cannot be true that Judas died in two different ways.
Now this is a classic purported contradiction.Off the top, John 6:46 harmonizes it right up.No one, not just anyone, except he that is of God.John 6:46"Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."Jacob was of the Father.
That's a good argument, I will drop that point. I know it's shocking, but I haven't read the bible as much as you. :P
Just remember, for your argument to be sound you must discredit all of my points, because if even one is not solidly rebutted, then that point is allowed to stand, and I only need one point to prove my whole argument.
If you ever so decide to consider scripture, even it backs up the ever changing traits of mankind via migration of people throughout the world and the development of many nations.Starting from Genesis I believe, a man and his three sons to Acts , all nations made of one blood(common ancestor).
I'm confused as to your point. Natural selection states that the one common ancestor would have been the simplest possible life form, a single cell organism, not a fully fledged human.
You say "stationary" while the scripture you gave didn't even say that.Psalm 104 verse five says " You set earth on a firm foundation so that nothing can shake it, ever."Your interpretation you have of "stationary" means what? No movement. Ok no movement from where?This thing can't be moved or shaken out from where it is.It cannot be removed .
Sure, but it also can't be moved in the first place, while we now know that it is constantly moving. You say, "this thing can't be moved or shaken out from where it is", but it is. It is orbiting around the sun, which in turn is moving about the galaxy, which in turn is moving about the universe, which in turn is expanding rapidly.
You didn't even rebut anything.
"The bible implies that the earth is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old, when studies show that it is most likely much more than that."Just one word against another.
But one word has solid empirical evidence, and one is a book supposedly written by God. This is my whole argument. You can't assume the bible is correct, I am trying to prove that it isn't, so if It disagrees with proven modern science, then the Bible must be wrong, which means Christian God cannot be real.
The honest conclusion, nobody has proven the bible nor the God of it false.
Yeah, but unless you have better rebuttals, I kinda just did. You can't just say that I haven't proven anything, you have to prove that I haven't proven anything. That's what this debate is about.
Now the supposed contradictions are just conflicting the particular reader's subjective reasoning. You have to remove all secular biases.
So they're not contradictions if you just don't want them to be contradictions. The Bible is very clear. There is no subjective reasoning as to the death of Judas in both accounts. He either hanged himself or he fell and his guts spilled out. You can't interpret it any other way. Like this one:
Genesis 6:19-20:
"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."
Genesis 7:2-3 (Seven Pairs of Clean Animals and Birds, and Two of Unclean Animals.
Genesis 7:2-3:
"Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."
There's no other way to interpret this. Either God told Noah to take two of every animal, or 7 pairs of some animals, and 2 of others. Give me one other way you can interpret this so that it's not a contradiction.
You have yet to disprove premise 3, and since you have not tried to disprove premises, 1,2 and 4, that means premise 5 must be incorrect, meaning that I am winning so far.
Con
#4
"You misunderstand me. The contradictions aren't imperfect, the fact that they are in the bible makes the Bible imperfect, which does not make sense if Christian God is perfect."
Ok so you recant the statement of "imperfect contradictions". It was going to be harder for you if you would have held on to that language.
So this topic is pretty much about purported contradictions is that right?
Even if the contradictions were true, it still doesn't disprove God but we can debate on the purported contradictions.
"Same thing, the contradictions are not imperfect contradictions, they make the Bible imperfect by being in it."
I acknowledge the correction of your statement.
"How can you not see a contradiction? Judas can't have died two ways, yet the Bible clearly says he died in two different ways without acknowledging the other death or providing any explanation. For Christian God to be real, the whole Bible must be his word, and so must be true. It cannot be true that Judas died in two different ways."
You're saying it's two different ways. These passages describe it different. It doesn't mean Judas died by one method here and a totally different method over there.
See I can hang myself falling headlong hung by my head right. That's both passages. If one passage in general gives more revelation, that can be. That's the whole book since we're talking about the whole book. As you read scriptures, more and more is revealed about a single subject.
"That's a good argument, I will drop that point. I know it's shocking, but I haven't read the bible as much as you. :P
Just remember, for your argument to be sound you must discredit all of my points, because if even one is not solidly rebutted, then that point is allowed to stand, and I only need one point to prove my whole argument."
I don't accept this about all your points to be debunked. You just demonstrated that you falsely charged a contradiction due to lack of scriptural knowledge. So now your credit is smeared for stating about there being contradictions as you haven't fully investigated these passages. You made an error. How many other ones have you made? Scripture teaches you do err not knowing the scriptures.
At this point because your credit is questionable, we really can't rely on your conclusion that there are contradictions.
You'll have to concede into saying "there are or these are purported contradictions". So now, this is what you should limit your conclusive statement to due to this point being rebutted solid.
"I'm confused as to your point. Natural selection states that the one common ancestor would have been the simplest possible life form, a single cell organism, not a fully fledged human."
A single cell from Adam in Genesis. We clear now.
"Sure, but it also can't be moved in the first place, while we now know that it is constantly moving. You say, "this thing can't be moved or shaken out from where it is", but it is. It is orbiting around the sun, which in turn is moving about the galaxy, which in turn is moving about the universe, which in turn is expanding rapidly.
You didn't even rebut anything."
That's because what I rebutted went right over your head. It can't be shaken or removed from its orbit. It can't be moved from its orbiting and rotation. Expand your consideration from a surface level face value approach.
"But one word has solid empirical evidence, and one is a book supposedly written by God. This is my whole argument. You can't assume the bible is correct, I am trying to prove that it isn't, so if It disagrees with proven modern science, then the Bible must be wrong, which means Christian God cannot be real."
What is this so called evidence that proves how old the earth is?
Also, find scripture where it states how old the earth is. Not implies but actually states it .
"Yeah, but unless you have better rebuttals, I kinda just did. You can't just say that I haven't proven anything, you have to prove that I haven't proven anything. That's what this debate is about."
You have not proven the bible false. Your argument was contradictions in the bible which you conceded on one. By one being faulty, now the rest is questionable. Your reliability of what is actually a contradiction in the scripture is no longer solid as you couldn't produce a counterpoint to my point on what you thought was a contradiction. The bible is not automatically false until proven so.
Even if it has contradictions for the sake of the point, it still doesn't disprove God . How do we know what's conflicting isn't intentional if this is all actually true?
Imperfect men in their imperfect writings could be all part of a divine will, again if all this is true.
Like I can write things concerning God that are inconsistent. God can still very well be real even though I'm flawed. You're not the first that's trying to disprove a negative.
"So they're not contradictions if you just don't want them to be contradictions. The Bible is very clear. There is no subjective reasoning as to the death of Judas in both accounts. He either hanged himself or he fell and his guts spilled out. You can't interpret it any other way."
I put it this way. When you don't have understanding or you don't know the scriptures, it appears conflicting to you. In other words, you just admitted that because you lacked knowing scripture, you came to the wrong conclusion about the particular contradiction. How do you know everything else you think is contradiction isn't just the same situation?
You have to be honest about that .
Like I said, one passage can give more revelation than the other. Nothing inconsistent there .
"Like this one:
Genesis 6:19-20:
"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."
Genesis 7:2-3 (Seven Pairs of Clean Animals and Birds, and Two of Unclean Animals.
Genesis 7:2-3:
"Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."
I really ask that you consider what these texts are saying. Are you looking for a contradiction or are you actually trying to get an understanding?
Both passages are speaking of pairs which are two. You harmonize both scriptures, you don't get any conflict.
"There's no other way to interpret this. Either God told Noah to take two of every animal, or 7 pairs of some animals, and 2 of others. Give me one other way you can interpret this so that it's not a contradiction."
You harmonize the scripture. It's both.
Genesis 7 and at verse 1
"And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth."
So the beasts and fowls are being taken in by sevens in pairs .
Line this up with the previous chapter.
"19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."
"So the beasts and fowls are being taken in by sevens in pairs "(of every living thing).
"You have yet to disprove premise 3, and since you have not tried to disprove premises, 1,2 and 4, that means premise 5 must be incorrect, meaning that I am winning so far."
You winning in misunderstanding scripture, no argument there.
"Premise 1: Christian God is perfect"
According to the scripture, it makes no mention of a Christian God. I don't know where you got that from. The scriptures does mention the heavenly Father is perfect.
That can be proven with scripture.
"Premise 2: The Bible is the word of god."
The scripture within it is the word according to it.
"Premise 3: The Bible has Contradictions"
This is a claim that hasn't been proven. Thus far, your credit on this has been demonstrated faulty.
"Premise 4: Contradictions are Imperfect"
This is a contradiction to your position that I trust you will correct.
"Premise 5: Christian God is real"
Another contradiction to your position. You make the assertion in the topic that God cannot be real.
Now it is very weak to try to disprove the Spirit of God based on writings. You're going to have to disprove a negative. The spirit is not visible so how can you demonstrate the absence of an entity without the visibility of it which is what we need to verify the absence that is through empirical means?
I could just say you didn't prove your side going by the bible and you forfeit.
But I'll allow you to concede trying to use the bible, give up on that and use something else altogether.
I'll leave you with this for now. Consider the things I put forth in this round to get understanding.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Ok so you recant the statement of "imperfect contradictions". It was going to be harder for you if you would have held on to that language.
You keep twisting my words. First you misinterpret what I mean by "contradictions are imperfect", and then when I clarify what I really did mean, you take it as me recanting a point I made.
The Bible is Imperfect because it has contradictions. That is what I said from the beginning, and that is what I'm saying now. Because Christian God must be perfect, and the Bible is his word, then his word must be perfect, except it's not, because it has contradictions.
Even if the contradictions were true, it still doesn't disprove God but we can debate on the purported contradictions.
How? Take my Noah's Ark contradiction. Either God told Noah to take two of every animal, or he told him to take 7 pairs of some animals. He can't have told him both things, and yet the Bible says both.
I acknowledge the correction of your statement.
Again, not a correction.
You're saying it's two different ways. These passages describe it different. It doesn't mean Judas died by one method here and a totally different method over there.See I can hang myself falling headlong hung by my head right. That's both passages.
Well if the truth is that Judas hanged himself while falling off a cliff, then why didn't the bible have one passage where it said he did both. These two quotes are mutually exclusive because they make no mention of the other death. Since the Bible is perfect, there shouldn't even be a question as to whether it's a contradiction. However, many people can look at that and say that it is a contradiction. The Bible should be clear enough to dissuade that, however it clearly is not.
I don't accept this about all your points to be debunked
Well if there is one contradiction in the bible, then the bible is imperfect, and so Christian God cannot be real. What's the problem? If one contradiction is allowed to stand, then the Bible is Imperfect and therefore cannot be the perfect word of Christian God. Christian God must be the one described in the Bible, and if the Bible is Imperfect then Christian God cannot be real.
You just demonstrated that you falsely charged a contradiction due to lack of scriptural knowledge. So now your credit is smeared for stating about there being contradictions as you haven't fully investigated these passages. You made an error. How many other ones have you made? Scripture teaches you do err not knowing the scriptures.At this point because your credit is questionable, we really can't rely on your conclusion that there are contradictions.
Look, If you can discredit my other contradictions by finding some other verse that helps your case, that's fine, but you can't say just because I dropped one point that my whole argument must be false. I'm getting my contradictions straight from the bible, so you can't say my lack of scriptural knowledge means my copy-pasting is not reliable.
This is just an Ad-hominem fallacy. My logic can be (and is) still correct whether or not I have good knowledge of the bible, because I am actively citing passages in it.
"I'm confused as to your point. Natural selection states that the one common ancestor would have been the simplest possible life form, a single cell organism, not a fully fledged human."A single cell from Adam in Genesis. We clear now.
No, were not. Do you mean that all life evolved from a single cell that was in Adam? Or do you mean Adam represented the single cell? This makes no sense, and besides, bible creationism and evolution are at complete odds. Either God created all species in 6 days, or they were created over millennia. They are mutually exclusive, and one of them so happens to be a proven scientific fact.
That's because what I rebutted went right over your head. It can't be shaken or removed from its orbit. It can't be moved from its orbit and rotation.
But the scripture say "It will never move", not "never be removed" like you suggested. You can't interpret these words any other way, they are as they are. The Earth orbiting around the sun is absolutely "movement", so this Bible passage is false, and so is Christian God.
Also, find scripture where it states how old the earth is. Not implies but actually states it .
That's the point, I can't. It doesn't explicitly say how old the earth is, but you can calculate it by reading the Bible, which is exactly what the source I Cited did. Even if he was a little off, 6,000 to 10,000 is nowhere near 4.5 billion years, so no matter which way you cut it, the earth as described in the bible cannot be the same age as the real age of the earth.
What is this so called evidence that proves how old the earth is?
You won't be able to access this because it's a book, but it is the most credible work on the age of the earth. The book shows how scientists used Uranium-Lead dating to get a very precise estimate at 4.55 billion years old.
They took uranium from a meteorite that formed about the same time as the earth, and because of it's half-life decay, they could tell how long ago it was formed by how close it was to becoming Lead. They found that the meteorite was formed about 4.55 billion years ago, and so because we know it was formed about the same time as the earth, we know the earth is somewhere in that range.
The margin of error is somewhere between 4.48 and 4.62 years, and that's a liberal estimate. Even then, those numbers are so ridiculously far from 10,000 that there is no way they got it that wrong. The Bible must be incorrect about the age of the earth.
You have not proven the bible false. Your argument was contradictions in the bible which you conceded on one. By one being faulty, now the rest is questionable.
Okay, you still have to prove my other points wrong, you can't just say that they are all wrong because one of them was. I'm not against you questioning my logic, but by then you have to follow up on that questioning and prove my points wrong, which you have yet to do.
The bible is not automatically false until proven so.
Yeah, except I did just prove so. If you want to actually try and say how I didn't prove it, be my guest, but you can't just defy the terms of the argument and say the Bible hasn't been proven false.
I really ask that you consider what these texts are saying. Are you looking for a contradiction or are you actually trying to get an understanding?
I'm looking at two clearly conflicting passages and logically determining that they are a contradiction.
Both passages are speaking of pairs which are two. You harmonize both scriptures, you don't get any conflict.
Yeah, but one speaks of 2 of every animal and one speaks of 2 of some and 14 of others. 14 is a different number than 2. This cannot be reconclied
"Premise 1: Christian God is perfect"According to the scripture, it makes no mention of a Christian God. I don't know where you got that from. The scriptures does mention the heavenly Father is perfect.That can be proven with scripture.
The God mentioned in the scripture is Christian God. The God mentioned in the Bible is Christian God. Also, you just accepted my first premise as true because you quoted the Bible saying that a heavenly father is perfect, and remember, only one premise can be incorrect.
"Premise 2: The Bible is the word of god."The scripture within it is the word according to it.
Okay great, you accepted that one too.
"Premise 3: The Bible has Contradictions"This is a claim that hasn't been proven. Thus far, your credit on this has been demonstrated faulty.
Well I disagree, but that's for the voters to decide I guess.
"Premise 4: Contradictions are Imperfect"This is a contradiction to your position that I trust you will correct.
Again, I mean that contradictions make the bible Imperfect. You accepted this one too.
"Premise 5: Christian God is real"Another contradiction to your position. You make the assertion in the topic that God cannot be real.
No, my point is that this must be the incorrect premise. You still don't understand my argument.
So you've accepted premises 1,2, and 4. You still haven't accepted that the Bible has contradictions, but I believe I have proved that, and I think the voters will agree with me, so then premise 5 must be the incorrect one. Christian God cannot be real.
I have provided many contradictions. You have only responded to a few of them, and by doing so passively accepting the others as contradictions. One of them you have disproven, but you have extrapolated that out to try and prove that my other ones must be incorrect because one of them was incorrect. This is a horrible fallacy, so you have still not proven that the Bible is without contradiction, while I have. My opponent has also not engaged in the actual debate, only saying "the Bible has not been proven false", while not actually trying to rebut my proof.
Con
#6
"You keep twisting my words. First you misinterpret what I mean by "contradictions are imperfect", and then when I clarify what I really did mean, you take it as me recanting a point I made.
The Bible is Imperfect because it has contradictions. That is what I said from the beginning, and that is what I'm saying now. "
My friend you really have to pay attention to the arrangement of words you use.
Here's what you stated in the first round:
"Premise 4: Contradictions are Imperfect"
You did not say premise 4 is " The Bible is Imperfect because it has contradictions. "
These are two different statements whether you realize it, acknowledge it or concede to it.
I don't care whether you continue to reject this. The public can see for themselves.
"Because Christian God must be perfect, and the Bible is his word, then his word must be perfect, except it's not, because it has contradictions."
I hereby declare the opposing side has no credibility and no reliability of what is a contradiction in the scriptures due to admitting a lack of scriptural knowledge.
You using the scripture in attempt to disprove God is inadmissible in light of this .
"How? Take my Noah's Ark contradiction. Either God told Noah to take two of every animal, or he told him to take 7 pairs of some animals. He can't have told him both things, and yet the Bible says both."
For the basic fact people can write flawed or inconsistent things about me. It doesn't mean I don't exist.
"Again, not a correction. "
Like the scripture says for they know not what they do. I trust you don't want to be what the Bible says about those refusing to take correction.
"Well if the truth is that Judas hanged himself while falling off a cliff, then why didn't the bible have one passage where it said he did both. These two quotes are mutually exclusive because they make no mention of the other death. Since the Bible is perfect, there shouldn't even be a question as to whether it's a contradiction. However, many people can look at that and say that it is a contradiction. The Bible should be clear enough to dissuade that, however it clearly is not."
Scripture say there is a way that seem right unto man. I suppose you're given this way here saying what should be. It's not going to be the way you like. Just accept correction again on this. See as long as you lack consideration like I said, you'll always have misunderstanding and everything will appear contradicting to you .
"Well if there is one contradiction in the bible, then the bible is imperfect, and so Christian God cannot be real. What's the problem? If one contradiction is allowed to stand, then the Bible is Imperfect and therefore cannot be the perfect word of Christian God. Christian God must be the one described in the Bible, and if the Bible is Imperfect then Christian God cannot be real."
You can no longer be sure what actually is one because you admitted one you were wrong on and you lack the knowledge so everything you see as a contradiction can just be the same situation.
You're discredited at this point.
"Look, If you can discredit my other contradictions by finding some other verse that helps your case, that's fine, but you can't say just because I dropped one point that my whole argument must be false. I'm getting my contradictions straight from the bible, so you can't say my lack of scriptural knowledge means my copy-pasting is not reliable.
This is just an Ad-hominem fallacy. My logic can be (and is) still correct whether or not I have good knowledge of the bible, because I am actively citing passages in it."
Just admit your wrong like before. Just concede or use something else. I'm willing to allow as an hoc argument that isn't original just to give you another chance. Just stay out the scriptures. Scripture says speak on what you know.
A late bishop said one time there's no need in pretending that you know.
"No, were not. Do you mean that all life evolved from a single cell that was in Adam? Or do you mean Adam represented the single cell? This makes no sense, and besides, bible creationism and evolution are at complete odds. Either God created all species in 6 days, or they were created over millennia. They are mutually exclusive, and one of them so happens to be a proven scientific fact."
The theory of evolution has not been proven. Now if you want to argue or ask where in the scripture supports a single cell started everything, then look at the first cell in Adam and so forth and so on.
The theory of evolution has not been proven. Now I debated someone on this and that person couldn't prove it. You want to debate that, let me know.
"But the scripture say "It will never move", not "never be removed" like you suggested. You can't interpret these words any other way, they are as they are. The Earth orbiting around the sun is absolutely "movement", so this Bible passage is false, and so is Christian God."
Hardheaded and stubborn. The scripture says for the hardness of your hearts. I said "It can't be shaken or removed from its orbit. "
So it still makes the statement true. Something cannot be moved from a space even if moving within that space. Consider, consider, consider.
"That's the point, I can't. It doesn't explicitly say how old the earth is, but you can calculate it by reading the Bible, which is exactly what the source I Cited did. Even if he was a little off, 6,000 to 10,000 is nowhere near 4.5 billion years, so no matter which way you cut it, the earth as described in the bible cannot be the same age as the real age of the earth."
I would just leave this alone . Nine times out of ten, somebody told you the earth was millions of years old and you believed said scientist/researcher etc .
Either that or went with what somebody has said or written.
"You won't be able to access this because it's a book, but it is the most credible work on the age of the earth. The book shows how scientists used Uranium-Lead dating to get a very precise estimate at 4.55 billion years old.
They took uranium from a meteorite that formed about the same time as the earth, and because of it's half-life decay, they could tell how long ago it was formed by how close it was to becoming Lead. They found that the meteorite was formed about 4.55 billion years ago, and so because we know it was formed about the same time as the earth, we know the earth is somewhere in that range. "
Yup, going with what somebody has written slapping the label evidence on it and these people have the titles so all that "qualifies".
"The margin of error is somewhere between 4.48 and 4.62 years, and that's a liberal estimate. Even then, those numbers are so ridiculously far from 10,000 that there is no way they got it that wrong. The Bible must be incorrect about the age of the earth."
You haven't even given any scripture to state the age of the world and the bias got you saying it's wrong.
If you've calculated based on the scripture, demonstrate that .
"Okay, you still have to prove my other points wrong, you can't just say that they are all wrong because one of them was. I'm not against you questioning my logic, but by then you have to follow up on that questioning and prove my points wrong, which you have yet to do."
I have done so every round. You can continue to reject this like the scripture. Normally the opposing side will do that. No matter how hard it is as the scripture say it is hard to kick against the pricks.
"Yeah, except I did just prove so. If you want to actually try and say how I didn't prove it, be my guest, but you can't just defy the terms of the argument and say the Bible hasn't been proven false."
You have not proven the Bible false and have not proven the spirit of God false. You're not the first that has failed at trying to disprove a negative. Again , critiquing writings will not help.
People say the Bible is corrupted. It gets you nor them any further to disproving a spirit which is invisible.
"I'm looking at two clearly conflicting passages and logically determining that they are a contradiction."
Ok so you're looking for a contradiction. Also what you say is a biblical contradiction is inadmissible just from one example. All it takes is one.
"Yeah, but one speaks of 2 of every animal and one speaks of 2 of some and 14 of others. 14 is a different number than 2. This cannot be reconclied"
Scripture say o fools slow of heart.
"The God mentioned in the scripture is Christian God. The God mentioned in the Bible is Christian God. Also, you just accepted my first premise as true because you quoted the Bible saying that a heavenly father is perfect, and remember, only one premise can be incorrect."
Give me book chapter and verse that reads "Christian God". I believe I got scripture that says heavenly Father. I don't read anywhere where it says "Christian God". That's made up.
"Okay great, you accepted that one too."
I accept what is correct according to scripture. If the scripture teaches it, why lie and say it doesn't?
The scripture does teach it is the word of God which no one has disproven.
"Well I disagree, but that's for the voters to decide I guess."
You cant' admit you lack biblical knowledge and yet correctly charge what biblical contradictions are.
"Again, I mean that contradictions make the bible Imperfect. You accepted this one too."
Perhaps that's what you meant. I'll give you that. It may have been what you meant but it's not what you said. You don't want to admit the error either due to pride or you truly think what you meant and said are the same. They are not. Contradictions that are imperfect is not the same as the Bible being supposedly imperfect with contradictions.
"No, my point is that this must be the incorrect premise. You still don't understand my argument.
So you've accepted premises 1,2, and 4. You still haven't accepted that the Bible has contradictions, but I believe I have proved that, and I think the voters will agree with me, so then premise 5 must be the incorrect one. Christian God cannot be real."
Look here, when you make the statement God cannot be real, there must be some evidence for it. You admitted you were wrong about one contradiction but not the others after I gave you explanations on those as well. As the scripture say, gospel is hid to them that are lost.
Round 4
Pro
#7
My friend you really have to pay attention to the arrangement of words you use.Here's what you stated in the first round:"Premise 4: Contradictions are Imperfect"You did not say premise 4 is " The Bible is Imperfect because it has contradictions. "These are two different statements whether you realize it, acknowledge it or concede to it.I don't care whether you continue to reject this. The public can see for themselves.
Yes, they can be interpreted as different when you misunderstand my words, but I have clearly clarified my logical argument and you still hang on to this.
I am clarifying this now, Premise four of my argument is CONTRADICTIONS MAKE THE BIBLE IMPERFECT. Please argue against this premise.
I hereby declare the opposing side has no credibility and no reliability of what is a contradiction in the scriptures due to admitting a lack of scriptural knowledge.You using the scripture in attempt to disprove God is inadmissible in light of this .
I am copy-pasting from the Bible. Last I checked you don't need scriptural knowledge to operate a computer. The Contradiction is there, whether you want to argue against it or not.
For the basic fact people can write flawed or inconsistent things about me. It doesn't mean I don't exist.
Okay, we're getting close now. Yes, people can be flawed, but God Cannot. I clarified this in my opening argument if you need proof. If God wrote the Bible, and the Bible is imperfect, (which you basically just admitted to), then the perfect Christian God cannot be real, because he clearly is not perfect.
"Well if the truth is that Judas hanged himself while falling off a cliff, then why didn't the bible have one passage where it said he did both. These two quotes are mutually exclusive because they make no mention of the other death. Since the Bible is perfect, there shouldn't even be a question as to whether it's a contradiction. However, many people can look at that and say that it is a contradiction. The Bible should be clear enough to dissuade that, however it clearly is not."Scripture say there is a way that seem right unto man. I suppose you're given this way here saying what should be. It's not going to be the way you like. Just accept correction again on this. See as long as you lack consideration like I said, you'll always have misunderstanding and everything will appear contradicting to you .
Still not a rebuttal.
The theory of evolution has not been proven. Now if you want to argue or ask where in the scripture supports a single cell started everything, then look at the first cell in Adam and so forth and so on.The theory of evolution has not been proven. Now I debated someone on this and that person couldn't prove it. You want to debate that, let me know.
Well it has been proven:
- https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory#:~:text=The%20genomes%20of%20all%20organisms,proteins%20during%20each%20organism's%20life
- https://necsi.edu/evidence-for-evolution#:~:text=Five%20types%20of%20evidence%20for,DNA%2C%20and%20similarities%20of%20embryos.
- www.paleosoc.org/evolution#:~:text=The%20fossil%20record%20is%20the,of%20viral%20and%20bacterial%20diseases.
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/2462549#
I knew you would dispute me on this because we've had this debate before, so I won't push this too much. Voter, keep in mind I have real, primary, scientific sources, and my opponent has nothing yet.
Hardheaded and stubborn. The scripture says for the hardness of your hearts. I said "It can't be shaken or removed from its orbit. "So it still makes the statement true. Something cannot be moved from a space even if moving within that space. Consider, consider, consider.
Sure, something doesn't have to be stationary to move within a space, but the quote from the scripture said that it "cannot be moved" period. The Bible says that the earth can't be moved, yet we know it is moving so the Bible must be wrong. If God meant to say that it cannot be removed, then he would have said that, but because he makes it so confusing, it is clearly imperfect.
If I walked up to you and told you the sky was red, you would say, "no you're wrong" not come up with some weird round-about way of interpreting what I was saying so that it was right. I don't get what is so hard about this.
I would just leave this alone . Nine times out of ten, somebody told you the earth was millions of years old and you believed said scientist/researcher etc .
Yes I believe them, because 1. Said scientist has done actual research, and 2. they have their findings posted, so I don't have to blindly believe them, I can make up my mind for myself!
Yup, going with what somebody has written slapping the label evidence on it and these people have the titles so all that "qualifies".
This isn't just what somebody has written, it's corroborated evidence from many scientists, using empirical evidence that has been backed up by countless other studies. It doesn't take one lying scientist to disprove this, it takes the entire scientific community lying to disprove this! Again, voters, I have actual empirical evidence and my opponent doesn't come back with counter evidence, they throw all terms out the window and say that my proof amounts to moot. Consider this when voting on the sources section.
You haven't even given any scripture to state the age of the world and the bias got you saying it's wrong.If you've calculated based on the scripture, demonstrate that .
*sigh*, I literally clarified this last time. I didn't do the math, but somebody else did who I linked. Here it is again, please look at it this time?
To sum up this whole part of my argument, you can calculate in the Bible that the Earth is somewhere between 6,000 to 10,000 years old, (source linked above). However, it is proven that the earth is much older than that, specifically between 14.2 and 14.8 billion years. These numbers are so different that they just can't be reconciled. The Bible must be wrong, so the God described in the Bible cannot be real, because his word must be perfect, and the Bible must be perfect, except it isn't.
You have not proven the Bible false and have not proven the spirit of God false. You're not the first that has failed at trying to disprove a negative. Again , critiquing writings will not help.
For the last time, you can't just say I haven't proven anything, you have to demonstrate that I haven't proven anything!
Ok so you're looking for a contradiction.
Yeah, and I found like 10.
"Yeah, but one speaks of 2 of every animal and one speaks of 2 of some and 14 of others. 14 is a different number than 2. This cannot be reconclied"Scripture say o fools slow of heart.
Again, not a rebuttal.
Give me book chapter and verse that reads "Christian God". I believe I got scripture that says heavenly Father. I don't read anywhere where it says "Christian God". That's made up.
By christian God, I mean the "heavenly father" described in the Bible.
Look here, when you make the statement God cannot be real, there must be some evidence for it.
And there is, are you going to address any of it?
Thank God (pun intended) that I didn't make this a 5 round debate, although it honestly should have been a 2-3 round anyways.
Voters, my opponent has not directly responded to many of my contradictions, and has tried to disprove them all by disproving one. When faced with indisputable scientific proof they deny it or shift the focus away. They have not provided a single source to disprove mine, and they have not actually disproven any of my premises or disproven the conclusion.
They also have not successfully disproven my logical argument. Here it is again to remind you:
Premise 1: Christian God is perfect
Premise 2: The Bible is the word of god.
Premise 3: The Bible has Contradictions
Premise 4: Contradictions are Imperfect (to clarify, I mean that the Bible is imperfect because it has contradictions.)
Premise 5: Christian God is real
Conclusion: At least one of the previous Premises must be false.
They have accepted premises 1,2, and 4, and they have not addressed many of my points for premise 3, so Premise 5 must be the incorrect one, meaning I have won this debate. Thank you for reading, Vote Pro!
For my opponent, though I may have gotten frustrated at times, I do still appreciate you accepting my debate. Thank you for making this possible.
Con
#8
It has been fun. We got to do this again.
"Yes, they can be interpreted as different when you misunderstand my words, but I have clearly clarified my logical argument and you still hang on to this.
I am clarifying this now, Premise four of my argument is CONTRADICTIONS MAKE THE BIBLE IMPERFECT. Please argue against this premise. "
Clarification is you correcting yourself whether you see it or not or continue to reject it. The public and I will acknowledge the correction in you rephrasing the premise because they are two differently defined statements. They may mean the same to you. This is where you have to be careful in the arrangement of words you choose so they exactly say what you mean and not just supposed to mean what you intended.You didn't even challenge me to prove that they are different which tells on the confidence level of what was initially phrased that was particularly inappropriate.
But we agree whether you see this or not, that a contradiction has to be perfect to exist. So from your stance, the Bible would have to have perfect, not imperfect contradictions.
"I am copy-pasting from the Bible. Last I checked you don't need scriptural knowledge to operate a computer. The Contradiction is there, whether you want to argue against it or not."
My friend, a computer didn't help you from not being wrong on the so called contradiction you admitted you were wrong on. You're not only limited in knowledge but limited by the research you do. If you don't know of something, you're not going to know to look for it. This is why somebody has to teach you.
By this point you made it's like saying I lack medical knowledge and still can be an expert in the field. You can't be a doctor by researching on a computer.
The way to learning the scripture is no different. Hence you learning here about the scripture now.
"Okay, we're getting close now. Yes, people can be flawed, but God Cannot. I clarified this in my opening argument if you need proof. If God wrote the Bible, and the Bible is imperfect, (which you basically just admitted to), then the perfect Christian God cannot be real, because he clearly is not perfect."
You found not one scripture to provide that says God wrote the bible so your entire point here is moot as well.
My original point still stands about others writing about me, not me myself. Let alone for any ulterior will I have for it being done that way in the first place which hasn't been disproved.
"Still not a rebuttal."
I said both passages of Judas don't contradict. I've explained it, you rejected it. You couldn't counter it. You just repeated yourself so I'm not going to repeat myself. You have a hard head so right now it is not in you to consider what is being said to you so you continue to be without understanding.
I think you admitted you're looking for contradiction, not understanding. So as far as I'm concerned, you agree not only of your ignorance but lack of understanding.But you disingenuously believe you can identify biblical contradictions while it being demonstrated that your judgment on such is questionable.
Take note readers.
"Well it has been proven:
this because we've had this debate before, so I won't push this too much. Voter, keep in mind I have real, primary, scientific sources, and my opponent has nothing yet. "
I don't need anything because it hasn't been proven. So you stand down on the subject.
"Sure, something doesn't have to be stationary to move within a space, but the quote from the scripture said that it "cannot be moved" period. The Bible says that the earth can't be moved, yet we know it is moving so the Bible must be wrong. If God meant to say that it cannot be removed, then he would have said that, but because he makes it so confusing, it is clearly imperfect."
Scripture say there is a way that seemeth right unto man. The opposing side is dictating how the scripture should read. Now the opposing side wants me to accept the way the opposing side put in text the way it was done in the first round about premise 4 and to accept what is meant. But then the opposing side refused to consider and accept that my explanation still fits with the earth not being moved. Therefore calling it contradiction.
"Sure, something doesn't have to be stationary to move within a space"
This is backwards. Try considering this better. Something can be stationary within a space while moving within that space. The opposing side is completely twisting this up to prevent acceptance of a true saying as the scripture says this is a true saying.
"makes it so confusing, it is clearly imperfect."
No your understanding like everything else is imperfect and thus leaving you confused.
"If I walked up to you and told you the sky was red, you would say, "no you're wrong" not come up with some weird round-about way of interpreting what I was saying so that it was right. I don't get what is so hard about this."
You're refusing to accept that there's no contradiction and that's hard for you to do. This analogy of yours doesn't even fit. The accurate analogy is "don't move out of your room". You're still moving in your room but you didn't move out of your room. Now if you reject this, you are lost.
"Yes I believe them, because 1. Said scientist has done actual research, and 2. they have their findings posted, so I don't have to blindly believe them, I can make up my mind for myself!"
Yes tomato tomotto. You can make up your mind to believe writings here with the scientists and not writings there with the writers of scripture and others that do vice versa.
Both groups decide to believe in or are caused to believe in whatever they do in faith .
"This isn't just what somebody has written, it's corroborated evidence from many scientists, using empirical evidence that has been backed up by countless other studies. "
That's what you were told, right. Let's face it. Have you tested the evidence yourself or did you just read about it or hear about it and were convinced?
Take a moment and recognize that. This is the difference between empirical and what leans more towards testimony and hearsay.
"It doesn't take one lying scientist to disprove this, it takes the entire scientific community lying to disprove this!"
We don't worry about popular vote to prove or disprove anything. That's a great fallacy.
"Again, voters, I have actual empirical evidence and my opponent doesn't come back with counter evidence, they throw all terms out the window and say that my proof amounts to moot. Consider this when voting on the sources section."
First of all if you're talking about the evolution thing, that's not even on topic, so why are you trying to get credit for something that's irrelevant here? Besides that, you have what somebody wrote slapping the title "empirical evidence" on it and that's it.
So you believe the scientists which causes you to have a bias on the bible preventing you from considering it thoroughly . That's most likely the case. You couldn't think of a rebuttal for one of the contradictions so you conceded. You couldn't allow conceding the rest. Even though your judgment on contradictions here is discredited.
"*sigh*, I literally clarified this last time. I didn't do the math, but somebody else did who I linked. Here it is again, please look at it this time?"
I'm not debating "somebody else", I'm debating you. This is what I'm saying,you keep giving me what somebody wrote instead of you doing the demonstration yourself testing these things for yourself. You give me what somebody wrote, then what? I just believe that person. That's not the nature of evidence. This is just " no don't believe this here , believe that over there". I won't go into my suspicions why. I digress.
"To sum up this whole part of my argument, you can calculate in the Bible that the Earth is somewhere between 6,000 to 10,000 years old, (source linked above). However, it is proven that the earth is much older than that, specifically between 14.2 and 14.8 billion years. These numbers are so different that they just can't be reconciled. The Bible must be wrong, so the God described in the Bible cannot be real, because his word must be perfect, and the Bible must be perfect, except it isn't."
Yes because you say it so all is true. Just claim after claim after claim not proving anything.
"For the last time, you can't just say I haven't proven anything, you have to demonstrate that I haven't proven anything!"
Mere contradictions alone don't disprove text. All it does is show the writers are flawed or you are ignorant as they appear to be conflicting which you conceded to.
"Yeah, and I found like 10."
You have not. Your credibility for a biblical contradiction is has been proven to be shot and discredited.
"Again, not a rebuttal."
It's not meant to be a rebuttal. See once I already debunked you, I don't have to go any further.
"By christian God, I mean the "heavenly father" described in the Bible."
You want to stick to exact words. You're already charging false contradictions. Paraphrasing subjectively just makes it more fallacious. You're more and more away from pure accuracy with constant rephrasing.
"And there is, are you going to address any of it?"
I'll summarize. I already addressed it. Contradictions don't disprove me nor God nor the bible. Further to that, we can't rely on what you think are biblical contradictions.
"Thank God (pun intended) that I didn't make this a 5 round debate, although it honestly should have been a 2-3 round anyways. "
Trying to disprove what you can't resist to use in your language. Typical.
"Voters, my opponent has not directly responded to many of my contradictions, and has tried to disprove them all by disproving one. When faced with indisputable scientific proof they deny it or shift the focus away. They have not provided a single source to disprove mine, and they have not actually disproven any of my premises or disproven the conclusion."
I'll summarize. Contradictions don't disprove me no God or the bible. Further to that, we can't rely on what you think are biblical contradictions.
"For my opponent, though I may have gotten frustrated"
You guys gotta workout not being frustrated or getting upset. If you're going to debate, accept what comes with the territory.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
This is a vote cast by Yesterdaystommorow:
In my interpretation of what Moozer intended by saying a "Christian God", he means "A god as described by Christianity" (As described by the bible, effectively).
Moozer then argues that something cannot be defined by contradictions.
We can look to math to help us understand this: anything divided by zero is explicitly 'undefined'. Mathematicians will refuse to define X/0 solely because contradictions lie in any definition.
F(x)=X/0
Lim X of F(x) -> 0 (-) = -infinity
But, Lim X of F(x) -> 0 (+) = +infinity.
A contradiction.
After reading the arguments, it is apparent that Moozer successfully proved this. Namely, the death of Judas sold the point for me.
However, I will note that demonstrating evolution is pretty much a certainty would not suffice as evidence for this argument. This is due to the nature of the contradiction, where it is one view contradicting another. In other words: "You are lying! No, I'm not!" Even if we were 99.999% sure evolution is real, there is the slimmest of chances still that creationism would occur, which is enough of a point for Mall. This is different from what Moozer needed to show more of, where one view contradicts itself. In other words: "I am lying!" Since we know here that whichever point is true, provable, or not, the person stating it is still contradicting themselves.
I am representing
On this basis, Moozer would have my vote.
**HOWEVER**
If we wanted to go further into math, we would learn of Kurt Gödle. Kurt Gödle managed to demonstrate in his Incompleteness Theorems that there exist true statements in math that cannot be proven true. Using only math, he effectively managed to write a true statement stating, "This statement cannot be proven." Which upended countless mathematical assumptions at the time.
What I am getting at with this is that there does exist one niche spot in math that is in itself still up for contention which demonstrates even the slightest possibility for 'true contradictions'.
On THIS basis, if we truly wanted to cherry-pick for a single cherry in an entire field of cherry trees, there exists one way in which Mall may have grounds to say he won this debate.
My vote is for Moozer, but if we wanted to jump 1000 hurdles, there is one argument I see that Mall could still fight for.
God has not been proven false . Some of you are straight up lying to yourselves believing that.
Thank you for casting a vote on my behalf. As a thank you, I am going to start a roach farm as you suggested. I am hoping to provide maybe 5% of the world's meat, milk, and egg supply by 2026.
Quick correction to comment #4:
F(x) should equal 1/X, not X/0
Oops!
Well thanks anyways. I always appreciate some commentary on my debate skills.
Given that I cannot vote, I will cast an unofficial one here in the comments. I suppose my one vote will have some weight if nobody else votes.
In my interpretation of what Moozer intended by saying a "Christian God", he means "A god as described by Christianity" (As described by the bible, effectively).
Moozer then argues that something cannot be defined by contradictions.
We can look to math to help us understand this: anything divided by zero is explicitly 'undefined'. Mathematicians will refuse to define X/0 solely because contradictions lie in any definition.
F(x)=X/0
Lim X of F(x) -> 0 (-) = -infinity
But, Lim X of F(x) -> 0 (+) = +infinity.
A contradiction.
After reading the arguments, it is apparent that Moozer successfully proved this. Namely, the death of Judas sold the point for me.
However, I will note that demonstrating evolution is pretty much a certainty would not suffice as evidence for this argument. This is due to the nature of the contradiction, where it is one view contradicting another. In other words: "You are lying! No, I'm not!" Even if we were 99.999% sure evolution is real, there is the slimmest of chances still that creationism would occur, which is enough of a point for Mall. This is different from what Moozer needed to show more of, where one view contradicts itself. In other words: "I am lying!" Since we know here that whichever point is true, provable, or not, the person stating it is still contradicting themselves.
On this basis, Moozer would have my vote.
**HOWEVER**
If we wanted to go further into math, we would learn of Kurt Gödle. Kurt Gödle managed to demonstrate in his Incompleteness Theorems that there exist true statements in math that cannot be proven true. Using only math, he effectively managed to write a true statement stating, "This statement cannot be proven." Which upended countless mathematical assumptions at the time.
What I am getting at with this is that there does exist one niche spot in math that is in itself still up for contention which demonstrates even the slightest possibility for 'true contradictions'.
On THIS basis, if we truly wanted to cherry-pick for a single cherry in an entire field of cherry trees, there exists one way in which Mall may have grounds to say he won this debate.
My vote is for Moozer, but if we wanted to jump 1000 hurdles, there is one argument I see that Mall could still fight for.
votes
Votes
I would have loved to accept this debate.