III Bible Contradictions do not disprove God
Yes, I’ll acknowledge there are plenty of biblical contradictions, so Pro need not argue the point too heavily; I’ll likely agree with him. [memo: again, I’ve pre-written this and now that Virtuoso has posted round 1, I wholeheartedly agree with all he says about this, with a couple of exceptions I’ll develop later, while disagreeing on conclusions drawn, but will restrain until round 2 rebuttal]. Where I think we’ll separate is that in spite of these contradictions, I still believe the Holy Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. In no wise do I suggest the Holy Bible is infallible. That this is so is evident just by a comparative read of the translations and transcriptions from the predominately Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, and predominately Greek texts of the New, into the popular languages of today; i.e. Latin, English, French, German, etc. Pro has acknowledged this point, but, even if translations were spot on correct, there would still be perceived contradictions, as Pro has also addressed. Does this mean the Holy Bible is not the Word of God? No, it means it is the product of inspired men. Even inspired men make mistakes, even while discussing the truth. The Holy Bible simply is not a product manufactured by the power of God. Neither is the Torah, the Qu’ran, and many other examples of holy writ outside of the Abrahamic religions. They are the products of men. As Pro offered, “…the Bible is not perfectly clear and authoritative, and has the appearance of merely human authorship.”
However, lets look at the products of science: Is the concept of geocentrism true science? It once was, a mere 2,500 years ago. So was heliocentrism in the 17th century, just 400 years ago. Now? No. Contradiction, yes; backward and forward, because galactoctocentrism is no longer the accepted science, either, but it was.
Scientific contradiction?
Observe that we once considered there were but four elements: earth, air, water and fire. Is that contradicted today? Need I cite? There are plenty of other examples, such as the nature of DNA, which Darwin poked at, among others, and, some twenty years later, more was discovered of the phenomenon of DNA, but only by an enterprising Swiss physician/researcher who decided to make serious inquiry by use of the discarded afterbirth of some unidentified birth [amniotic sac, placenta, and umbilical]. From refuse, we made the first significant foray into understanding the stuff of human genetic patterning. Not necessarily contradictive, but certainly ironic.
That there are biblical contradictions, I’ll agree, but Pro’s stool of three legs is now two [or one since he has combined two of them]. Contradiction just got whacked, because the phenomenon occurs to science, too. It’s a balancing act from here on, and I have given a suitable offering to exhibit faith, but I have not yet given evidence for God. The path to that evidence is faith, that elusive sixth sense.
IV How to work faith
How does faith work? Rather, how do we work with faith to acquire knowledge, to see “the evidence of things not seen?”
Oh, how I wish Paul had extended his 11th chapter of Hebrews, because I am confident he knew the path of hope, to faith, to knowledge of God. Perhaps he did, and it has been maliciously removed [I cannot prove that, and will not make the attempt], or ignorantly removed [same disclaimer], or, it was never there [same disclaimer].
IV.a Faith defeats fiction
Well, fortunately, Pro’s quote by Richard Dawkins in round 1 is relevant: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:…” Yes, as one would expect some character of fiction sitting atop the heap of despicable characteristics that follow to be. By this description, that fellow is truly vile, and Dawkins spares no horses in the description… of a fictional fellow. So, if it is fiction, why is Dawkins, a renowned atheist, so wrapped around the axle on the subject? If it’s fiction, enjoy the story, and move on to the next book.
II Revelation
Paul does not tell us that this substance and evidence are matters to be assessed by our typical senses, however, he does tell us that these things are revealed to us: “For by it [faith] the elders obtained a good report.” That is, a thing was revealed to them that they had not known before it was revealed. There is other evidence of revelation, and that it is from God: In Matthew, we read of the experience when Jesus asked his apostles whom others said Jesus was, and they replied that some thought he was John the Baptist, or Elias, or Jeremias… Jesus then asked, “But whom say ye that I am?
“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
A careful read of the following verses, which many consider the evidence that Peter was “the Rock” upon which Christ’s church was founded, will expose a different interpretation; that revelation is the rock upon which Christ’s church is founded.
Revelation, then, that sublime communication from God, which many consider to have ended with the end of the Holy Bible, is an ongoing phenomenon, ongoing to anyone who expresses the faith described by Paul. Ongoing, because one may ask: why did God appear and speak to men in ages past, even up to 2,000 years ago, but has since ceased this activity?
No wonder people such as my opponent, believe God does not exist. They’ve seen no modern evidence that He still communicates. Even many who believe God exists stop at the point of embracing the idea of modern revelation form God. They will even pray that all suffering of mankind cease, as if they expected this revelation, but no other, and on the basis of the apparent failure of God to comply, lose their faith and determine He is not, or He would remove the suffering.
They ignore an important consideration. They who still believe insist that God is omniscient and omnipresent. I agree; He is. However, I also believe that having such power does not compel Him to express that power. My neighbor, who is at some distance from my home, has the power to knock down the fence between our properties. So do I. That we mutually agree to keep it in place is the simple demonstration of this point of having power, but not necessarily inclined to use it.
There is an argument that God does not exist because it does not make sense that an unembodied God should make an embodied man [and the rest of the world, as well], to achieve an unembodied state, like that God, except that man cannot become like God, they say, therefore, He, God, made an embodied man to… or else an embodied man made an unembodied God to… it’s a circular reference by whichever reference of who made whom.
So what, pray tell, insists that God is unembodied? Yeah, yeah, there’s that scripture [conflict?] in John, “God is a Spirit…” and that feeds the above argument with the circular reference. No one gets anywhere on a merry-go-round. My opponent argued, in Comments that he had, “three arguments: the problem of evil, biblical defects, and contradictory properties.” [memo: this was all written up to now before Virtuoso posted his first round, and he has combined the second two arguments into one] On the whole, I will argue these matters by rebuttal in round 2, but for now, I will close on the matter [but not entirely – I’ll leave some for rebuttal] of “contradictory properties.”
Revision of round 1 with headings - #1
This is a classic debate. Always has been, always will be, at least until such time as someone, God, if no one else, exhibits the undeniable evidence in His favor. One might argue, even then, that the evidence is not sound. Privilege, I suppose, is the grand gift of agency; even the privilege to deny.
I. It’s about faith and evidence
Let me note, first, Pro’s #8 comment in the Comments tab: “It’s all about faith, not evidence.” Pro may not accept biblical, or for that matter, other scriptural reference, but since pro has not defined sourcing limitations, and since, clearly, such volumes that some consider holy writ exist, whether or not one believes their content, one may apply the same denial for the same reason to Scientific American, for example; a monthly magazine to which I once subscribed and considered as a reliable source of information. As past issues are now available online, I no longer subscribe. Men and women write it. So was, for example, the Bible. I see no evidence that God wrote one jot or tittle of it. Inspired, yes, by my observation.
So, I will claim first, that it is all about faith and evidence. I will cite, first, from Hebrews in the New Testament, which gave about as valid a definition of faith as I have ever observed: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” [bolded for emphasis]
I.a Faith > Substance
This is Paul, the Apostle, writing an epistle to the Hebrews – understood as Jews, then, and said of himself, “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus… yet brought up in this city [Jerusalem].”
Relative to the verse from Hebrews, Paul allows that “faith” is a “substance” of things for which hope is the delivery of that substance. The Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, “OED”] has several definitions of this word, but highlights a first definition, which then splits by two subsets. I’ll key on two of them; theological, and philosophical.
“Substance: 1. Senses relating to the nature or essence of something.
“i. Substance [theo]: the divine essence or nature, esp, as that which the three persons of the Trinity are united as one”
“ii, Substance [philo]: A being that subsists of itself; a distinct individual entity; [also gen.] a thing, being”
I.b Faith > Evidence
Note that the substance is a matter of hope according to Paul; it is not necessarily a current acquisition, but something to be revealed in a future, but accessible time to come. Paul follows this hope by saying that faith is the “evidence of things not seen;” evidence understood to mean proof of a thing beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a court of law, or as empirically derived knowledge in a scientific theorem, but not currently seen. Apparently, “faith” is an ability to “see” with eyes that are not those mounted as a pair in the heads of humankind. I suppose Paul might have meant “spiritual eyes;” those tools of the Spirit, which know by a sense beyond the typical five physical senses we humans, share: sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.
We depend on these senses for much of what we call “empiric evidence,” or even “truth.” Loss of them is a tragic consequence, virtually negating ourselves from our world.
However, are we limited to these five? We know there are other, lesser beings with which we share the earth which possess other senses, such as echo location, and sensitivity to earth’s magnetic field. Is it, then, possible, since these other creatures mostly also share these five senses with us, that humans have access to additional senses? The idea may not be so impossible to consider. Is it possible that one of them may align with Paul’s definition of “faith?” A substance delivered by hope, and evidence of things unseen by human, physical eyes?
Yes, I see... I will hold comment until voting. This will be challenging as both of you are friends, and justice is blind? Good thing she's a woman who is as fickle as any other, and I am mute before her. Besides, I could always vote for Bernie. I'm beginning to feel sorry for the old white guy.
Such a good line. Oh, well. Really, I was not going to bring it up. I fear unicorns. Particularly invisible ones that happen to be pink. Got to be afraid of something; might as well be that.
I like how you handled the last round, offering a point I had not considered, and you raise a good argument. However, I consider the debate title as just a catch phrase, like an advertising hook to drawn interest. The real debate subject is in the description:“’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.”
Gad to have you engaged in another debate! Good luck, my friend. I agree to your terms as stated. Read and weep all you who comment, but would not engage. Comment to your cows coming home. Meanwhile, Virtuso and I eat steak. [assuming you're a carnivore - can't make that assumption any more!]
I find the argument on either side as superfluous. Abortion is, by established law, a legal procedure. That law, by the way, is not Roe v Wade [1973] because it did not establish law by precedent, it merely decided it was a State-controlled issue, not Federal,and authorized States to make law consistent with their decision that abortion was legal. Some states already had such state law, but some had no law on the subject, and some had to revise current law to align with the Roe decision.
However, if I participate in voting on this debate, I will vote only on the basis you your relative arguments, as if there was no current legalizing law.
I am fascinated by this subject and will follow the proceedings with great interest, and will positively be a voter. I definitively come down on one side of the proposed debate, but I can divorce my proclivities and vote on the basis of the arguments presented. There is a particular subject I'm hoping will be presented by either participant, but I am not going to tip my hand as to its subject. I am hoping one of you will use it as an argument, but will wait until the argument phase has concluded and proceeded to voting before I mention it in comments. It will not be a subject on which I draw any conclusions in voting.
I submit that a "characters per argument" of 1,000 in each round is not enough to make typical debate argument, rebuttal, and defense. For example, your round 1 argument, according to my words-with-spaces counter sums your argument at 998 words+spaces. I suggest your future debates allow a count in the range of 5,000 to 10,000. If you propose a difficult and/or controversial subject, maybe more. Doesn't mean you must use so many characters, but more it is prudent.
Really, dear opponent, you had your shot at argument in four rounds, per my designation in challenging the debate, and I believe the debate policy says, "When all arguments have been published, the debate goes into the next stage." That stage is voting. We are in voting stage. Your argument ability has passed, yet you have argued sufficient to have had a fifth round. I believe that is considered vote bombing. Would you like me to have my fifth round? No? The policy prevents it? Domage, mon vieux.
"Rate per million & average were used as an example. jeeeeeze"
An example that does not hold because the two are not related statistical models.
Nevertheless, taking a Pro side, one is expected to present arguments favoring the Pro side, and full dedication to that side. Wavering in debate is weakness. Got to be committed, or the debate isn't.
When you quote from other sources, and properly cite those sources by reference, you are not violating copyright. In fact, you are supporting their copyright by doing so. Who told you otherwise? And what's their source?
"Citing. When you use material from a copyrighted source, you must properly cite it. This identifies where the material was found and shows that the material is not your original idea but is borrowed. ... Commonly, a book citation includes the book title, author, publisher, edition and year of publication... When you use material from a copyrighted source, you must properly cite it. This identifies where the material was found and shows that the material is not your original idea but is borrowed. You should cite the source for both paraphrased ideas and direct quotes. The citation should include enough information for a reader to be able to locate the original source." https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/copyright-laws-citing-sources-16438.html
What, pray tell, is preventing you from quoting from other sources than from Wiki. You seem adept at quoting from Wiki, why not from other sources?
It is your opponents' duty to do your sourcing job? Absurd. See my argument about seeking fresh water. So, if your source is the gutter, you expect someone else to find a better source for you? Find your own better source, and let that be challenged, if it can be. You click on your better link and quote it. And if that is not sufficient, find a further link from that first generation link. Find the best water you can find yourself. That is your job, and yours, alone. I'm as valid as I can be. If you disagree, see if a moderator will agree with you, or me.
Diarrhea, malnutrition, heart disease are diseases that do not have direct-effect vaccines, that is, that have vaccines developed strictly for the purpose of prevention or treating these diseases. There ares vaccines that have the side effect of amielorating these diseases, but none of them have vaccines developed as an original purpose of combatting them.
Please note in my voting in giving sourcing to Con, that I reference the analogy of seeking fresh water from its best sources, as compared to my quote from Wikipedia about itself. The conclusion of that comparison ought to be a teaching moment for future debate efforts. Wiki is your savior? Low-ball savior, my friend.
And you will lose your bet. Same as you have lost your phantom "yes." Look, in the upper left corner of your monitor, when you are on a given debate wherein you are the protagonist, you, and only you, are saying "yes" to the proposition of the debate if and when you have initiated the debate and haver chose to be the Pro. God in heaven! no wonder you still don't get it that rate per million is NOT an average!
Sorry to disagree, but none of the three historians you mentioned were contemporaries to Christ. The closest to fitting that description was Josephus, who was born in 37 CE, in Jerusalem, within the decade [third of the century] of Christ's crucifixion. The others, Tacitus, was born in 56 CE, and Sueetorius, in 69 CE.
Sorry, forgot to mention: I accept all definitions and debate details. I do not know how to add pictures, so I'll appreciate a primer. I note that we can forfeit one round and, depending on the will of judges, not be penalized, but it appears more than one is automatic forfeiture of the debate. Don't want to risk that; I plan to avoid it completely.
Oh, Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz...
This is such a tempting subject, as I am fluent in New Kingdom hieroglyphs grammar, and as such familiar with the culture, but the former has little to do with architecture, and I am inclined to accept that the dating of these great structures is currently in error. However, my appreciation of the ancient Egyptian civilization is too tempting to refuse, so I'll take this on as a reluctant Con. This will be fun to contradict my own thinking. I'm glad you're allowing a good amount of time for argument; I'll need it! Anything may happen. Thanks, and good luck, my friend.
Agreed, which is why I rankle at such comments by climate alarmists who claim that their science is "in." A science that is, at best, 200 years old. Compare to sciences such as physics, astronomy, geology, which are thousands of years old, and still do not make that claim.
Wow, just in reviewing Con's Round 1 argument, and in Pro's round 2 response, I find 3 glaring issues against Con's argument:
1. Con's list of 12 studies are full of references to "evidence favors," "Exposures suggest," no significant effect,"meta analysis suggests," and "might be attributable to chance." Fully 7 of teh 12 cited sources left allowance for the possibility of relationship. That is hardly conclusive evidence of a lack of relationship.
2. Pro's round 1"Dr. Plotkin" argument, revealing that the good doctor would proceed with DTaP vaccine even lacking empiric evidence is not convincing for Con's argument.
3. Pro's round 1 study of Con's 12 studies demonstates citable instances where all 12 fail to show relevance to the precise vaccine DTaP, let alone to consistent age-group related study. That's enough on which to comment. I will be voting on this dfebate, and cannot yet say how I will vote, but these three examples are telling.
I mean by such notions that have been, historically, but may begin to have cracks with String Theory, for example, treated as fact. Example: the speed of light is the maximum achievable speed. And that black holes are total gravity sinks.
Relative to my last comment here, I want you to know that I thoroughly enjoyed our debate, and beg your forgiveness for the cynic in me. You truly raised some valid points in opposition, and wish you well in your further debates.
Thank you for voting. I appreciate your commentary, even that which is in criticism. You raise valid points. I'm afraid one of my faults is a rather thick streak of cynicism, and I especially prefer the negative side of cynicsm that engages the 18th century French penchant to seek the "bon mot." A clear fault, I recognize and just need to be patient with myself as I work to eliminate it. In the end, though, I'm a very happy guy, cynic or nt.
It is possible that a president could be elected by a smaller sample that 22% of the electorate if a large enough segment of registered voters do not vote.
"The argument only works..." your "if" statement is not true, by the Constitution, and, unless that is changed, remains un true, therefore, not presently a factor.
Faithless electors will always be a concern, but, to date, they have never affected the outcome of an election.
Very good. Let's begin. I will be posting 1st round soon. Let's see, I understand this Sunday, you're implementing Daylight Savings, so I believe you will be seven hours ahead; I'm in US Mountain time zone, currently 16:56 [I've been to about 30 countries in my brief sojourn, but never Great Britain, even though my ancestry goes through Scotland to France. My immediate roots, however, are American. My first immigrant ancestor came from Scotland in 1625, and from France in 1066. I speak fluent French and have logged about three years there.
Thanks for accepting this debate. Please advise before we begin if you're agreeable to the definitions as given. I will wait for your reply, but I have only two days to launch. Good luck!
I note you're new to the site. Welcome aboard. I'm not so experienced on the site, either, but feel free to ask. Navigating around is very easy. This is a great site for debate, and also the forum is stimulating. Have a look at that, too.
1 https://medium.com/the-hum/the-science-of-decision-making-5-ways-to-make-the-right-decision-every-time-cbd85306ef6d
2 Attributed to Edmund Burke
3 According to the OED definition of “good,” and the corresponding antithesis of “evil”
4 https://hbr.org/2018/04/7-traits-of-super-productive-people
5 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201308/the-real-meaning-good-and-evil
6 http://www.balanceyoursuccess.com/whats-good-about-goodness/
Revision of round 1 with headings - #3
III Bible Contradictions do not disprove God
Yes, I’ll acknowledge there are plenty of biblical contradictions, so Pro need not argue the point too heavily; I’ll likely agree with him. [memo: again, I’ve pre-written this and now that Virtuoso has posted round 1, I wholeheartedly agree with all he says about this, with a couple of exceptions I’ll develop later, while disagreeing on conclusions drawn, but will restrain until round 2 rebuttal]. Where I think we’ll separate is that in spite of these contradictions, I still believe the Holy Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. In no wise do I suggest the Holy Bible is infallible. That this is so is evident just by a comparative read of the translations and transcriptions from the predominately Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, and predominately Greek texts of the New, into the popular languages of today; i.e. Latin, English, French, German, etc. Pro has acknowledged this point, but, even if translations were spot on correct, there would still be perceived contradictions, as Pro has also addressed. Does this mean the Holy Bible is not the Word of God? No, it means it is the product of inspired men. Even inspired men make mistakes, even while discussing the truth. The Holy Bible simply is not a product manufactured by the power of God. Neither is the Torah, the Qu’ran, and many other examples of holy writ outside of the Abrahamic religions. They are the products of men. As Pro offered, “…the Bible is not perfectly clear and authoritative, and has the appearance of merely human authorship.”
However, lets look at the products of science: Is the concept of geocentrism true science? It once was, a mere 2,500 years ago. So was heliocentrism in the 17th century, just 400 years ago. Now? No. Contradiction, yes; backward and forward, because galactoctocentrism is no longer the accepted science, either, but it was.
Scientific contradiction?
Observe that we once considered there were but four elements: earth, air, water and fire. Is that contradicted today? Need I cite? There are plenty of other examples, such as the nature of DNA, which Darwin poked at, among others, and, some twenty years later, more was discovered of the phenomenon of DNA, but only by an enterprising Swiss physician/researcher who decided to make serious inquiry by use of the discarded afterbirth of some unidentified birth [amniotic sac, placenta, and umbilical]. From refuse, we made the first significant foray into understanding the stuff of human genetic patterning. Not necessarily contradictive, but certainly ironic.
That there are biblical contradictions, I’ll agree, but Pro’s stool of three legs is now two [or one since he has combined two of them]. Contradiction just got whacked, because the phenomenon occurs to science, too. It’s a balancing act from here on, and I have given a suitable offering to exhibit faith, but I have not yet given evidence for God. The path to that evidence is faith, that elusive sixth sense.
IV How to work faith
How does faith work? Rather, how do we work with faith to acquire knowledge, to see “the evidence of things not seen?”
Oh, how I wish Paul had extended his 11th chapter of Hebrews, because I am confident he knew the path of hope, to faith, to knowledge of God. Perhaps he did, and it has been maliciously removed [I cannot prove that, and will not make the attempt], or ignorantly removed [same disclaimer], or, it was never there [same disclaimer].
IV.a Faith defeats fiction
Well, fortunately, Pro’s quote by Richard Dawkins in round 1 is relevant: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:…” Yes, as one would expect some character of fiction sitting atop the heap of despicable characteristics that follow to be. By this description, that fellow is truly vile, and Dawkins spares no horses in the description… of a fictional fellow. So, if it is fiction, why is Dawkins, a renowned atheist, so wrapped around the axle on the subject? If it’s fiction, enjoy the story, and move on to the next book.
Revision of round 1 with headings - #2
II Revelation
Paul does not tell us that this substance and evidence are matters to be assessed by our typical senses, however, he does tell us that these things are revealed to us: “For by it [faith] the elders obtained a good report.” That is, a thing was revealed to them that they had not known before it was revealed. There is other evidence of revelation, and that it is from God: In Matthew, we read of the experience when Jesus asked his apostles whom others said Jesus was, and they replied that some thought he was John the Baptist, or Elias, or Jeremias… Jesus then asked, “But whom say ye that I am?
“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
A careful read of the following verses, which many consider the evidence that Peter was “the Rock” upon which Christ’s church was founded, will expose a different interpretation; that revelation is the rock upon which Christ’s church is founded.
Revelation, then, that sublime communication from God, which many consider to have ended with the end of the Holy Bible, is an ongoing phenomenon, ongoing to anyone who expresses the faith described by Paul. Ongoing, because one may ask: why did God appear and speak to men in ages past, even up to 2,000 years ago, but has since ceased this activity?
No wonder people such as my opponent, believe God does not exist. They’ve seen no modern evidence that He still communicates. Even many who believe God exists stop at the point of embracing the idea of modern revelation form God. They will even pray that all suffering of mankind cease, as if they expected this revelation, but no other, and on the basis of the apparent failure of God to comply, lose their faith and determine He is not, or He would remove the suffering.
They ignore an important consideration. They who still believe insist that God is omniscient and omnipresent. I agree; He is. However, I also believe that having such power does not compel Him to express that power. My neighbor, who is at some distance from my home, has the power to knock down the fence between our properties. So do I. That we mutually agree to keep it in place is the simple demonstration of this point of having power, but not necessarily inclined to use it.
There is an argument that God does not exist because it does not make sense that an unembodied God should make an embodied man [and the rest of the world, as well], to achieve an unembodied state, like that God, except that man cannot become like God, they say, therefore, He, God, made an embodied man to… or else an embodied man made an unembodied God to… it’s a circular reference by whichever reference of who made whom.
So what, pray tell, insists that God is unembodied? Yeah, yeah, there’s that scripture [conflict?] in John, “God is a Spirit…” and that feeds the above argument with the circular reference. No one gets anywhere on a merry-go-round. My opponent argued, in Comments that he had, “three arguments: the problem of evil, biblical defects, and contradictory properties.” [memo: this was all written up to now before Virtuoso posted his first round, and he has combined the second two arguments into one] On the whole, I will argue these matters by rebuttal in round 2, but for now, I will close on the matter [but not entirely – I’ll leave some for rebuttal] of “contradictory properties.”
Revision of round 1 with headings - #1
This is a classic debate. Always has been, always will be, at least until such time as someone, God, if no one else, exhibits the undeniable evidence in His favor. One might argue, even then, that the evidence is not sound. Privilege, I suppose, is the grand gift of agency; even the privilege to deny.
I. It’s about faith and evidence
Let me note, first, Pro’s #8 comment in the Comments tab: “It’s all about faith, not evidence.” Pro may not accept biblical, or for that matter, other scriptural reference, but since pro has not defined sourcing limitations, and since, clearly, such volumes that some consider holy writ exist, whether or not one believes their content, one may apply the same denial for the same reason to Scientific American, for example; a monthly magazine to which I once subscribed and considered as a reliable source of information. As past issues are now available online, I no longer subscribe. Men and women write it. So was, for example, the Bible. I see no evidence that God wrote one jot or tittle of it. Inspired, yes, by my observation.
So, I will claim first, that it is all about faith and evidence. I will cite, first, from Hebrews in the New Testament, which gave about as valid a definition of faith as I have ever observed: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” [bolded for emphasis]
I.a Faith > Substance
This is Paul, the Apostle, writing an epistle to the Hebrews – understood as Jews, then, and said of himself, “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus… yet brought up in this city [Jerusalem].”
Relative to the verse from Hebrews, Paul allows that “faith” is a “substance” of things for which hope is the delivery of that substance. The Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, “OED”] has several definitions of this word, but highlights a first definition, which then splits by two subsets. I’ll key on two of them; theological, and philosophical.
“Substance: 1. Senses relating to the nature or essence of something.
“i. Substance [theo]: the divine essence or nature, esp, as that which the three persons of the Trinity are united as one”
“ii, Substance [philo]: A being that subsists of itself; a distinct individual entity; [also gen.] a thing, being”
I.b Faith > Evidence
Note that the substance is a matter of hope according to Paul; it is not necessarily a current acquisition, but something to be revealed in a future, but accessible time to come. Paul follows this hope by saying that faith is the “evidence of things not seen;” evidence understood to mean proof of a thing beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a court of law, or as empirically derived knowledge in a scientific theorem, but not currently seen. Apparently, “faith” is an ability to “see” with eyes that are not those mounted as a pair in the heads of humankind. I suppose Paul might have meant “spiritual eyes;” those tools of the Spirit, which know by a sense beyond the typical five physical senses we humans, share: sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.
We depend on these senses for much of what we call “empiric evidence,” or even “truth.” Loss of them is a tragic consequence, virtually negating ourselves from our world.
However, are we limited to these five? We know there are other, lesser beings with which we share the earth which possess other senses, such as echo location, and sensitivity to earth’s magnetic field. Is it, then, possible, since these other creatures mostly also share these five senses with us, that humans have access to additional senses? The idea may not be so impossible to consider. Is it possible that one of them may align with Paul’s definition of “faith?” A substance delivered by hope, and evidence of things unseen by human, physical eyes?
Yes, I see... I will hold comment until voting. This will be challenging as both of you are friends, and justice is blind? Good thing she's a woman who is as fickle as any other, and I am mute before her. Besides, I could always vote for Bernie. I'm beginning to feel sorry for the old white guy.
Such a good line. Oh, well. Really, I was not going to bring it up. I fear unicorns. Particularly invisible ones that happen to be pink. Got to be afraid of something; might as well be that.
I like how you handled the last round, offering a point I had not considered, and you raise a good argument. However, I consider the debate title as just a catch phrase, like an advertising hook to drawn interest. The real debate subject is in the description:“’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.”
Gad to have you engaged in another debate! Good luck, my friend. I agree to your terms as stated. Read and weep all you who comment, but would not engage. Comment to your cows coming home. Meanwhile, Virtuso and I eat steak. [assuming you're a carnivore - can't make that assumption any more!]
I find the argument on either side as superfluous. Abortion is, by established law, a legal procedure. That law, by the way, is not Roe v Wade [1973] because it did not establish law by precedent, it merely decided it was a State-controlled issue, not Federal,and authorized States to make law consistent with their decision that abortion was legal. Some states already had such state law, but some had no law on the subject, and some had to revise current law to align with the Roe decision.
However, if I participate in voting on this debate, I will vote only on the basis you your relative arguments, as if there was no current legalizing law.
I am fascinated by this subject and will follow the proceedings with great interest, and will positively be a voter. I definitively come down on one side of the proposed debate, but I can divorce my proclivities and vote on the basis of the arguments presented. There is a particular subject I'm hoping will be presented by either participant, but I am not going to tip my hand as to its subject. I am hoping one of you will use it as an argument, but will wait until the argument phase has concluded and proceeded to voting before I mention it in comments. It will not be a subject on which I draw any conclusions in voting.
I agree. It is the last, abstainers, who may outnumber Democrat voters for Trump, who are the greatest concern to Democrats, and to Virtuoso
I notice on a subsequent debate proposal, you had already increased the count. 😀
I submit that a "characters per argument" of 1,000 in each round is not enough to make typical debate argument, rebuttal, and defense. For example, your round 1 argument, according to my words-with-spaces counter sums your argument at 998 words+spaces. I suggest your future debates allow a count in the range of 5,000 to 10,000. If you propose a difficult and/or controversial subject, maybe more. Doesn't mean you must use so many characters, but more it is prudent.
No victory for either of us, yet. There's still 7+ days for voting Just don't continue vote bombing
Really, dear opponent, you had your shot at argument in four rounds, per my designation in challenging the debate, and I believe the debate policy says, "When all arguments have been published, the debate goes into the next stage." That stage is voting. We are in voting stage. Your argument ability has passed, yet you have argued sufficient to have had a fifth round. I believe that is considered vote bombing. Would you like me to have my fifth round? No? The policy prevents it? Domage, mon vieux.
Thanks to both of you for voting.
Thanks for voting again.
"Rate per million & average were used as an example. jeeeeeze"
An example that does not hold because the two are not related statistical models.
Nevertheless, taking a Pro side, one is expected to present arguments favoring the Pro side, and full dedication to that side. Wavering in debate is weakness. Got to be committed, or the debate isn't.
Thanks for your votes
When you quote from other sources, and properly cite those sources by reference, you are not violating copyright. In fact, you are supporting their copyright by doing so. Who told you otherwise? And what's their source?
"Citing. When you use material from a copyrighted source, you must properly cite it. This identifies where the material was found and shows that the material is not your original idea but is borrowed. ... Commonly, a book citation includes the book title, author, publisher, edition and year of publication... When you use material from a copyrighted source, you must properly cite it. This identifies where the material was found and shows that the material is not your original idea but is borrowed. You should cite the source for both paraphrased ideas and direct quotes. The citation should include enough information for a reader to be able to locate the original source." https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/copyright-laws-citing-sources-16438.html
What, pray tell, is preventing you from quoting from other sources than from Wiki. You seem adept at quoting from Wiki, why not from other sources?
It is your opponents' duty to do your sourcing job? Absurd. See my argument about seeking fresh water. So, if your source is the gutter, you expect someone else to find a better source for you? Find your own better source, and let that be challenged, if it can be. You click on your better link and quote it. And if that is not sufficient, find a further link from that first generation link. Find the best water you can find yourself. That is your job, and yours, alone. I'm as valid as I can be. If you disagree, see if a moderator will agree with you, or me.
Diarrhea, malnutrition, heart disease are diseases that do not have direct-effect vaccines, that is, that have vaccines developed strictly for the purpose of prevention or treating these diseases. There ares vaccines that have the side effect of amielorating these diseases, but none of them have vaccines developed as an original purpose of combatting them.
Please note in my voting in giving sourcing to Con, that I reference the analogy of seeking fresh water from its best sources, as compared to my quote from Wikipedia about itself. The conclusion of that comparison ought to be a teaching moment for future debate efforts. Wiki is your savior? Low-ball savior, my friend.
And you will lose your bet. Same as you have lost your phantom "yes." Look, in the upper left corner of your monitor, when you are on a given debate wherein you are the protagonist, you, and only you, are saying "yes" to the proposition of the debate if and when you have initiated the debate and haver chose to be the Pro. God in heaven! no wonder you still don't get it that rate per million is NOT an average!
A reminder to my opponent that just 5+ days remain for a round 3 argument, and avoidance of forfeiture, having already forfeited round 2.
Sorry to disagree, but none of the three historians you mentioned were contemporaries to Christ. The closest to fitting that description was Josephus, who was born in 37 CE, in Jerusalem, within the decade [third of the century] of Christ's crucifixion. The others, Tacitus, was born in 56 CE, and Sueetorius, in 69 CE.
Thanks for voting.
Sorry, forgot to mention: I accept all definitions and debate details. I do not know how to add pictures, so I'll appreciate a primer. I note that we can forfeit one round and, depending on the will of judges, not be penalized, but it appears more than one is automatic forfeiture of the debate. Don't want to risk that; I plan to avoid it completely.
Oh, Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz...
This is such a tempting subject, as I am fluent in New Kingdom hieroglyphs grammar, and as such familiar with the culture, but the former has little to do with architecture, and I am inclined to accept that the dating of these great structures is currently in error. However, my appreciation of the ancient Egyptian civilization is too tempting to refuse, so I'll take this on as a reluctant Con. This will be fun to contradict my own thinking. I'm glad you're allowing a good amount of time for argument; I'll need it! Anything may happen. Thanks, and good luck, my friend.
Nor did you break any records citing sources that confirm your "proof."
Agreed, which is why I rankle at such comments by climate alarmists who claim that their science is "in." A science that is, at best, 200 years old. Compare to sciences such as physics, astronomy, geology, which are thousands of years old, and still do not make that claim.
Wow, just in reviewing Con's Round 1 argument, and in Pro's round 2 response, I find 3 glaring issues against Con's argument:
1. Con's list of 12 studies are full of references to "evidence favors," "Exposures suggest," no significant effect,"meta analysis suggests," and "might be attributable to chance." Fully 7 of teh 12 cited sources left allowance for the possibility of relationship. That is hardly conclusive evidence of a lack of relationship.
2. Pro's round 1"Dr. Plotkin" argument, revealing that the good doctor would proceed with DTaP vaccine even lacking empiric evidence is not convincing for Con's argument.
3. Pro's round 1 study of Con's 12 studies demonstates citable instances where all 12 fail to show relevance to the precise vaccine DTaP, let alone to consistent age-group related study. That's enough on which to comment. I will be voting on this dfebate, and cannot yet say how I will vote, but these three examples are telling.
Do you know what [sic] means? See to your own grammar and syntax, my friend.
"Classic."
Indeed. Please be around for voting.
I mean by such notions that have been, historically, but may begin to have cracks with String Theory, for example, treated as fact. Example: the speed of light is the maximum achievable speed. And that black holes are total gravity sinks.
How, then, do you explain science's use of Einstein's "Relativity," which has always had the predicate, "Theory of...?"
Thank you for voting. For the benefit of other voters before voting is finished, I shall make comments regarding your RFDs by private message.
Thanks for your vote
Relative to my last comment here, I want you to know that I thoroughly enjoyed our debate, and beg your forgiveness for the cynic in me. You truly raised some valid points in opposition, and wish you well in your further debates.
Thank you for voting. I appreciate your commentary, even that which is in criticism. You raise valid points. I'm afraid one of my faults is a rather thick streak of cynicism, and I especially prefer the negative side of cynicsm that engages the 18th century French penchant to seek the "bon mot." A clear fault, I recognize and just need to be patient with myself as I work to eliminate it. In the end, though, I'm a very happy guy, cynic or nt.
Thank you for voting
It is possible that a president could be elected by a smaller sample that 22% of the electorate if a large enough segment of registered voters do not vote.
"The argument only works..." your "if" statement is not true, by the Constitution, and, unless that is changed, remains un true, therefore, not presently a factor.
Faithless electors will always be a concern, but, to date, they have never affected the outcome of an election.
Thanks for voting
References for round 4:
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
2 https://www.thoughtco.com/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-4582571
3 Holy Bible, Genesis 3: 6
4 Holy Bible, Proverbs 127: 3, 5
5 Campbell, Beverley, Eve and the Choice Made in Eden, Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, 2003, page 35
6 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872, Chapter 8, page 213
7 Holy Bible, Genesis 3: 20
8 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872, Chapter 15, page 445
references for round 3
1 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 2nd – 6th editions, 1860 - 18722
2 https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/lilith-lady-flying-in-darkness/
3 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 26, and https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/13/biologically-speaking-this-is-why-humans-are-born-to-die/#87a4a264a48b
4 Darwin, Charles, Origin of the Species, 1st – 6th editions, 1859 – 1872, Chapter One, page 1.
5 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 28
We need voters on https://www.debateart.com/debates/1810/does-a-good-perfect-man-struggle-with-evil
references for round 2:
1 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 2nd – 6th editions, 1860 - 1872
2 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 1st – 6th editions, 1859 - 1872
3 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 1st – 6th editions, 1859 – 1872, Genesis 1: 26
4 http://humanorigins.si.edu/about/broader-social-impacts-committee/science-religion-evolution-and-creationism-primer
5 O.E.D., “Interactive”
6 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 3
7 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 26
8 https://www.creators.com/read/kids-talk-about-god/09/14/what-is-the-meaning-of-the-first-commandment-you-shall-have-no-other-gods-before-me
9 Holy Bible, Genesis 2: 16, 171
10 Holy Bible, Exodus 20: 13
11 https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/13/biologically-speaking-this-is-why-humans-are-born-to-die/#87a4a264a48b
12 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/telomeres
13 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842081/
14 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100403/
15 Holy Bible, Genesis 5: 15
16 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/telomeres
Very good. Let's begin. I will be posting 1st round soon. Let's see, I understand this Sunday, you're implementing Daylight Savings, so I believe you will be seven hours ahead; I'm in US Mountain time zone, currently 16:56 [I've been to about 30 countries in my brief sojourn, but never Great Britain, even though my ancestry goes through Scotland to France. My immediate roots, however, are American. My first immigrant ancestor came from Scotland in 1625, and from France in 1066. I speak fluent French and have logged about three years there.
Thanks for accepting this debate. Please advise before we begin if you're agreeable to the definitions as given. I will wait for your reply, but I have only two days to launch. Good luck!
I note you're new to the site. Welcome aboard. I'm not so experienced on the site, either, but feel free to ask. Navigating around is very easy. This is a great site for debate, and also the forum is stimulating. Have a look at that, too.
You're welcome. Will definitely have fun. Perhaps one day, we'll find a compatible debate. I look forward to that. Be well.
References for round 3:
1 https://medium.com/the-hum/the-science-of-decision-making-5-ways-to-make-the-right-decision-every-time-cbd85306ef6d
2 Attributed to Edmund Burke
3 According to the OED definition of “good,” and the corresponding antithesis of “evil”
4 https://hbr.org/2018/04/7-traits-of-super-productive-people
5 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201308/the-real-meaning-good-and-evil
6 http://www.balanceyoursuccess.com/whats-good-about-goodness/