EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
3124

The Bible is the inerrant Word of God

(PRO)
3 points
(CON)
WINNER!
11 points
KrazyKrazy (PRO)
This will be fun. (I wrote an essay a few months ago, this is simply a copy/paste of my work)

Intro

The Bible (God’s Word) is incapable of being wrong. The highest proof that the Bible is true is that if it wasn’t, nobody could prove that anything is true. It alone offers the requirements of intelligibility. The fundamentals of knowledge rests in the Bible. The 3 most essential fundamentals of epistemology are laws of logic, uniformity of nature (science), and absolute morality. Without the Bible, nobody has a reason to believe in these principles.

Logic

Laws of logic are the principles of reasoning that guide thinking. There are 3 laws of logic (note that “A” is a generic term):

1. Law of Identity: A is A.

2. Law of Noncontradiction: A cannot be A and not A at the same time in the same sense.

3. Law of Excluded Middle: A can only be true or false; there is no other alternative.

Now, everybody believes in the laws of logic, but not very many people think about why they believe them. Why are they true? According to the Bible, humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Reason and logic are a reflection of how God thinks. Since humans are made in His image, we can think like Him (to a certain extent). God is immaterial (John 4:24), eternal (Psalm 90:2), unchanging and cannot contradict Himself (Hebrews 1:17), and omnipresent (Jeremiah 23:24). Interestingly, these characteristics are the same for the laws of logic. Some raise the objection that they can use the laws of logic, yet they don’t believe in the Bible. This is simply a misunderstanding. The argument is not that people have to believe in the Bible to use the laws of logic; the Bible only has to be true. Just because someone might not believe in the Bible, that doesn’t mean they can’t use logic. The Bible says that all humans were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), so everyone uses logic since it is a reflection of Him. That doesn’t mean people have to profess a belief in the Bible. Another objection made by some people is that the laws of logic are not a reflection of the way God thinks; they are plainly protocols or conventions made by most or all humans, but this is not rational. If the laws of logic were conventions, then they wouldn’t be universal. This means that different societies could adopt different laws of logic. In Russia, for example, it might be perfectly fine to have a contradiction. This objection also commits the logical fallacy of appeal to the majority. Just because the majority adopts a protocol or custom, that doesn’t make it true. Some say that the laws of logic are just electrochemical reactions in the brain; this too is irrational. If they were chemicals, that means that the laws of logic would be made out of matter or energy. This means that if there was no matter (nor universe), then the statement, “There is a universe and there is no universe” would be true, since the laws of logic do not apply if there was no matter. Also, if there wasn’t one brain in the entire universe, then the laws of logic would not apply; therefore, the statement, “There is no logic and there is logic” would be true, since there are no laws of logic because there is no brain to create the laws of logic in the universe. The laws of logic would have to be non-material because of this. Some people have raised the objection that logic could come from the gods of religions other than the One in the Bible. However, only the biblical God can make sense of logic. Take a look at the Mormon gods. The Mormons actually believe in multiple gods, the idea that God the Father and God the Son (Jesus Christ) are two separate gods. The Bible clearly says that there is one God in three persons—a big difference. If there are multiple gods, then which one will somebody get their laws of logic from? As Jason Lisle said, “There can’t be a single set of laws of logic if there are multiple gods.” There is no reason to believe so. This is why Mormonism is false (or any other polytheistic religion for that matter). Jews only believe in the Old Testament and not in the New Testament; and are thus being inconsistent with the Bible, since it says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 Timothy 3:16). That only leaves Islam left. According to their holy book, the koran, “Allah is so superior that nothing in human experience is comparable to him” (Sura 42:11). This is part of their doctrine, tanzih. However, logic is part of the human experience. This means that the laws of logic cannot be compared to or relate to the Islamic god. The Islamic god, therefore, doesn’t exist. The Bible can provide an explanation for why we believe in the laws of logic though, because it says that we are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), and we can thus think like Him (to some extent). The Bible alone provides a reason to believe in the laws of logic.

Uniformity of Nature

The uniformity of nature is the second precondition for intelligibility. It is why we believe the future will reflect the past. Note that the uniformity of nature is not to be confused with uniformitarianism, which states that rates and conditions always stay the same over time. That is not true. The uniformity of nature is simply the idea that the laws of nature will not arbitrarily change. For example, nobody believes that gravity will suddenly disappear in the next five seconds, hurling everyone into outer space. This is because every human being relies on the uniformity of nature. The future will reflect the past. It is essential to the principles of science that make science possible. For example, say that somebody conducts an experiment and gets a result; if he conducts the same experiment on the next day under similar conditions, he expects to get the same result. This is how science works. This predictability is submissive under the uniformity of nature. However, not very many people consider why the future will be like the past at all. Indeed, if nobody has been in the future, how do we know that the laws of nature will be the same in the future as they have in the past? Only the Bible can account for why there is such predictability and uniformity. Since God made everything (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3), we can expect there to be a sense of orderliness to the universe. The Bible says that God upholds everything by the Word of His power (Hebrews 1:3; Genesis 8:22; Jeremiah 33:20). This is why the laws of nature do not arbitrarily change. He is consistent so that uniformity will apply at all or most of the time (1 Samuel 15:29; Numbers 23:19). He is also omnipresent so that uniformity applies everywhere (Psalm 139:7; Jeremiah 23:24). There is no other reason to believe that the future will be like the past. The most common objection people make as to why they believe in the uniformity of nature without the Bible is “There always has been uniformity in the past, so I expect that there always will be uniformity in the future.” However, this is simply a misunderstanding. The thing in question is not the past, but the future. We can’t use the past as a basis for the future, since nobody has been in the future to begin with. To say “there was uniformity in the past, so there will be in the future” is to beg the question, or use circular reasoning. Everyone knows that there was uniformity in the past, but nobody has a good reason to believe in uniformity of the future (without the Bible). When someone says, “I believe in uniformity because there always was in the past”, they are assuming uniformity to prove uniformity (circular reasoning). On another note, we can’t even know that there was uniformity in the past, since our memory relies on the laws of chemistry in the brain; and we trust that the laws of chemistry won’t change (assuming uniformity) so that we can properly remember uniformity in the past. Without the biblical God, reality is reduced to nonsense. Now, He doesn’t need to uphold the laws of nature. He has to be logical, since the laws of logic are a part of His nature, as explained earlier. But the uniformity of nature is a little different because He doesn’t “have” to uphold the universe in a consistent fashion. He just does it for our benefit. He can “break” the laws of nature if He wants to, since He created them. The laws of nature that we know of are just the ones that He upholds consistently or most of the time. He can sometimes break them and perform miracles. God said in His Word that He did this on multiple occasions over the Earth’s 6,000 year long history (including creating the Earth itself). He can certainly break the laws of nature, but He doesn’t do it all the time since He said He wouldn’t for the sake of our benefit (Genesis 8:22; Hebrews 1:3; Jeremiah 33:20). So miracles are, by definition, rare.

Absolute Morality

Everyone has a sense of right and wrong (morality). However, not everyone knows why every single human being has an innate concept of right and wrong, regardless of culture. Absolute morality only makes sense if the Bible is true. Since God is the creator (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3), everything belongs to Him. He has the right to establish the rules. He wrote His moral law on everybody’s hearts (Romans 2:15), so it only makes sense that everyone innately knows right from wrong. However, if the Bible is not true, than morality can only be relative. Some people believe that we don’t need the Bible (or God) to determine right from wrong; the laws of morality are just conventions adopted for the benefit of society. This is irrational because without God, morality is determined by humans; and that means morality is relative. If morality is nothing but a subjective standard to each person, and that everyone decides right and wrong for themselves, than nobody has the right to tell somebody else that what they’re doing is wrong, whether it be lying, stealing, rape, or murder. On another note, who determines what “benefits society?” Hitler had some ideas about that. Do we go by his standard, or do we go by Osama bin Laden’s standard of what “benefits” society? If morality is relative, that would lead to societal destruction and chaos, since everyone would invent their own moral code. Morality has to be absolute, not relative; and people cannot determine what’s right or wrong for themselves. Another argument that some people make is that right and wrong are determined by what gives the most happiness to the most people. So if everyone enjoys murder, that makes it right, according to this standard. Some people are happy while raping somebody, that doesn’t make it right though. On another note, if God doesn’t determine right from wrong, then humans would have to by default. Humans do not decide right and wrong. If they did, then that would be the logical fallacy of appeal to the majority. Just because the majority of humans think something is right, that doesn’t “make” it right. Many times, the majority has been wrong. In fact, in the whole context of human history, it seems like the majority has almost always got it wrong. It only makes sense if God makes the rules.

Conclusion
The Bible is inerrant, meaning it has no errors. Nothing in it is inaccurate nor wrong. It is the only book that makes possible the preconditions of intelligibility: laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and absolute morality. These 3 fundamentals make knowledge possible. This is the highest proof of the Bible, that if it wasn’t true, then nobody can prove that anything is true. To reject the Bible is to reject the preconditions of intelligibility that make knowledge possible. To reject the Bible consistently is to reject logic itself, to reject science, and to reject morals. Now, everyone believes in these 3 fundamentals of knowledge, but not everyone believes God’s Word (or God). However, God’s Word is the foundation for the 3 fundamentals of intelligibility. Everyone knows that He already exists, but don’t want to accept it. According to Romans 1:18-21, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” So the Bible says that everyone already believes in the biblical God, but most people don’t profess it with their mouths. Whether people need evidence for God’s existence is not the issue; it’s a heart issue. The believer believes in God and professes it. The unbeliever believes in God and denies it with his mouth. That is the ultimate proof of God.


I await for my opponent's arguments and counters.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-03-17 04:40:41
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
I thank my opponent for copying and pasting his essay.

As a starting point, let's consider the resolution, which pro has conveniently failed to define.
  • The bible - By convention, I'm going to assume the Christian bible is the one we're talking about. In this debate I'll be using the LOLcat translation of the bible as the most up-to-date, relevant and accurate translation in the world today. Read it here. Fair warning: if you have never read the bible before, it is kinda long. In short it describes how a cat up in the ceiling created the kittens of the world, saved those kittens, and one day will end the world. Meow.
  • God - since we're talking about the Christian bible here, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume this refers to the Christian God, better known as the ceiling cat.
  • Inerrant - "free from error" - Merriam Webster. Pro must prove that the Bible is transcribed word for word exactly as delivered by God.

One thing that's important here. Several of my opponent's claims are proof of the God of the Bible. There's a difference between the God of the Bible and the complete inerrancy of the Bible itself, since the Bible never claims to have been written by God correctly. It may be that the prophet Isaiah (or Isiah, for those who prefer not to speak lolcat) accidentally slurred a single vowel when delivering a particular prophecy, and the Bible would not be inerrant for failing to record that, although my opponent's "proofs" would still all be accurate. To this end he must defend the whole resolution, not just the parts of the resolution that he likes to defend.

Where does logic come from?
There was once a time, not so long ago, when people didn't know what lightning was. They imagined them to be massive spears thrown by vengeful Gods. People didn't know what caused tooth decay. They imagined supernatural invisible worms burrowing holes into people's teeth. People didn't understand mental illness. They decided it was a sign of divine disfavor and often labelled such people as "cursed" or "possessed by demons." People didn't understand where fire came from. Perhaps some great titan stole it from the Gods.

At the time when the concept of logic was first being invented, supernatural explanations were all we had for many of the world's mysteries. Logic was not one of them. Great names such as Aristotle and Socrates didn't wake up one day and get a vision showing them how to deduce - they figured that stuff out using hard work and science. The logical conclusions of many of the Greek philosophers may seem strange to us today, but they formed the basis of the methodology of science, which took centuries to refine. Essentially much of it was educated guesses based largely on ancient myths.

Today we have used that base knowledge of logic to dispel many previous religious ideas. We now know where fire comes from or what lightning is. But now, as then, we turn again to ancient myths to answer the questions that still elude modern science. The issue of where logic comes from is not an issue we have a certain answer to. With our modern knowledge we will no doubt settle this question in time. Don't get me wrong - it is possible that God is one of those explanations. It is merely not certain that God is the explanation. The truth is we don't know. This doesn't validate either the Bible or God, nor does it invalidate it.

It's not my onus in this debate to show to you where logic comes from. It's pro's onus to show that logic comes from God. To this end he made a number of fundamental errors that seriously undermine his assertion:
  • He begins by saying that there are 3 logical laws that are universally accepted. This is problematic, however, as the claim is impossible to prove without using the same laws. There is a branch of philosophy called paraconsistency which denies these laws are objectively true, and although it's beyond the scope of this round to evaluate that in depth, suffice to say it is only a tentative assumption at best.
  • He argues that God is reasonable and logical, but he doesn't explain why. In fact the Bible multiple times makes it clear that God's mind is too far removed from mortal comprehension, which contradicts this idea because we totally understand logic. Prima face it can be simply refuted with verses such as Phillipians 4:7 "An de Ceiling Cat b chillin. An dis chillin will b lyk NO WAI to aneething that wanna hurt yr feelin and thinkin." Or 1 Corinthians 2:13-16 "We are not speaked in right words, but in lolz. Peepz who isn't got ceilings isn't understooding of me... If nubz isnt beleived Ceiling Cat, copy paste mah macroz, lol." Pro even acknowledges this limitation with his claim of "to a certain extent", but does not show why it should (or should not) apply to logic specifically. Other verses show that man has thoughts that the ceiling cat doesn't (He doesn't disbelieve in himself for example) and pro doesn't show why this is.
  • Further, this entire section makes the assumption that the Bible is speaking the truth about God. Say if God were not actually omnipresent. That wouldn't prevent him from being the creator of the laws of logic. Nor does his omnipresence show that God created logic. It's a strange equivocation fallacy that proves a premise.

Then pro attempted to show a number of alternative theories and disprove all of them:
  • Pro addresses the biocentric view of logic as "protocols or conventions". In this view it isn't the universe that contains our minds, but our minds that contain the universe as a sort of illusion - nothing else is "real". As such, logical inconstancy is perfectly ok in the biocentric view, and there isn't any problem with the idea that in Soviet Russia contradiction uses you, except for rules bound by other parts of the system of belief you hold. As much as pro may find it absurd, it cannot actually be disproven, much like the old "brain in a vat" problem popular among amatuer philosophers (ie what if we're all just brains hooked up to a very powerful computer which gives us illusions of reality). Pro does nothing to challenge this view, only explaining that he disbelieves it, not why. It is certainly an example of an alternative that would work, as is the closely related but distinct (because it isn't necessarily subjective, among other reasons) "brain in a vat" scenario.
  • Then he postulates a modern naturalist perspective - that electrochemical interactions in our brain produce reactions in our consciousness to external stimuli in predictable (scientific) ways, giving rise to logic - since the reactions are predictable the interpretation (logic) is as well. Even if this did mean the laws of logic would be material, pro does not prove they are immaterial, merely asserts that. He argues that without a universe or the correct chemical interactions there would then be no logic, but does not show why that is problematic, because he hasn't proven that logic is objective or timeless either. As an aside, there is also a different but related theory in naturalism that argues that our perception of logic might still be different from how logic works in reality, if those reactions are imperfect.
  • Pro argues that only the Biblical God can make sense of logic. This is irrelevant because this debate is not about the existence of the Biblical God. This entire section would still be true if God created the universe in 7.189 days instead of precisely seven, and the Bible would still be errant.
  • It goes without saying, by the way, that pro hasn't addressed every other possibility or specific variant of a possibility that there might conceivably be for why logic exists or does not exist - realism, formalism, empiricism, constructivism, social constructivism, fictionalism, platonism, nominalism, monism, psychologism etc etc. You can count on philosophers to come up with dozens of crazy ways to make something work. It's also very possible that the truth could be an alternative that nobody has even thought of yet.

It's an ironically large number of basic logical errors for a proof of logic, don't you think?

I'll give you a much better reason than everything my opponent said to believe in logic - it works. Try it. See for yourself. Logic has a really good track record of working. Then try praying for something and see if God's track record is any better. As Matthew 7:7-8 says, "U skrachez teh sofaz n u can haz cookie. Sniffz n u can find cheezberger. Skrach n teh door will opin. Or maybi Ceiling Cat putz in cat flap. Evribodi who skrachz getz. Evribodi who sniffz findz, Evribodi who skrahcz door getz to go in." And that's just one example. The very concept of the Holy Trinity violates the first of pro's three laws, the law of identity, for example.

As an aside, the same thing happens to numbers, shapes, colors etc. There are many theories as to whether and why numbers exist, just as there are many theories of logic. The two share a lot of overlap because technically logic is a kind of mathematics, hard though that is to believe if you haven't done university-level formal logic papers (like I haven't). I strongly doubt my opponent will raise the argument that God epitomizes every kind of number and shape, too. People just don't understand abstract concepts well enough to reach a firm conclusion here.

At best, all pro managed to prove was that the ceiling cat described in the Bible would provide a viable explanation for the existence of logic, supposing He exists. At worst, this is basically a lot of hot air.

Uniformity of nature
Prior to Copernicus, the notion of the "Copernican Principle", that the Earth had no special place in the universe, was seen as quite blasphemous. According to the then-reigning interpretation of the Bible (happy though I am to defer to pro on general theological matters), any notion that the Earth and people in it did not have a special place in the universe was blasphemous.

The ancient Hebrews basically saw water as the base element of everything. The earth was seen as a flat disk, a "firmament" as many translations put it, containing Sheol below. It was separated from the waters by a "ceiling" that we might call the sky. Stars, sun and earth were seen as flying about on that ceiling, as well as some sort of way to get to heaven, which was seen as being above the ceiling. When rain fell, God allowed water to flow through the ceiling, basically. This was a convenient explanation, however inaccurate it turned out to be. It basically had the Earth as the ONLY thing that existed, and everything else was basically like a little accessory to the earth.

By the time of Jesus/Jebuz/Happy Cat, the Jews realized they were probably wrong about this all, not least because the Earth is totally not flat. The religious authorities instead began advocating for a dynamic universe that just so happened to be centered around Jerusalem. Imagine their shock, then, to learn that the solar system revolved around the sun, itself only a tiny little part of a much grander galaxy in a much grander universe. With the advent of the Copernican Principle, came the death of the notion that the Earth is in any way special. It follows too that God's favoring of one particular small tribe of people on this relatively insignificant planet suddenly sounded absurd, prima face.

The point of mentioning all that is to show that if anything, science has demonstrated that reality is vast and chaotic, not small and almost all watery except for God-touched stuff. It is a counterpoint to uniformism. While pro only believed in that in the logical sense of "that things have predictable outcomes", I want to rebut this generally.

Science finds rules. That's not to say that its discoveries need be consistent, or that those rules are uniform. As an example of that, pro mentioned the idea that the future reflects the past. But we now have some very good evidence that even though time is lived forwards, it runs backwards - so in fact it's the future affecting the past, not the other way round. It might have been that God created the whole universe three seconds ago with an appearance of age, science would still be equally valid, the laws of nature would have "arbitrarily" changed (3 minutes ago) and also the resolution would be false. As a philosophical assumption it's almost impossible to disprove.

I for one don't believe science will believe the same things it does now in the future. And I see that as a good thing because our understanding of the universe is, most probably, wrong. That's the beauty of science. It allows us to challenge rules as easily as it allows us to find them. Even with pro's example, the fact is that failed "routine" experiments are responsible for many of the world's breakthroughs.

Causality probably exists, but any notion of scientific uniformity clearly doesn't. Our brains are so adept at finding patterns that sometimes it can become difficult to see that reality has changed a lot. Some parts of reality change more than others. Few of the universe's physical laws are identical now as they were during the time of the big bang, for instance. It's a different era for the universe. And for what there might have been before our universe? Who knows? I'd be very surprised if there was a multiverse AND it was perfectly consistent.

So why IS there causality? I think the better question is "why are there forces"? Why does one bit of matter affect another (that they take time to do so is obvious because spacetime is a thing and the space between matter is not infinitely small)? As with logic or math, forces remain relatively unexplained by science. There are candidates. God is one of them. In physics they call this "fundamental interaction" and it's more complicated than you would assume. Fermions - the things all particles are made of - move by physically exchanging "bosons" with each other. This points very strongly to a physical basis for forces as opposed to the supernatural view, since unlike logic, forces have a clear physical basis on even the most fundamental level. A well known example of a boson might be a photon, which carries light energy. Quantum mechanics, for example, theorizes that fermions never interact at all, and that the exchange of bosons happens through things called gauge bosons which is little more than a "game of life" simulation fundamentally (ironic name, huh). Again the idea that it happens through time is exactly the same as the idea that causality happens through space. While not proven definitively either, and while experiments like CERN will no doubt shed a lot more light on the subject, this sounds much more plausible than a universe where "God did it".

Pro considers a few selected objections to his God theory. First he argues that past consistency as a principal is begging the question or circular reasoning. Sure. It is in fact known as proving the premise. This is important though: a lot of people think logically fallacious = wrong. This is not a true relationship. It merely makes the argument unpersuasive, not inaccurate, since it requires you to already agree with the conclusion. In fact a circular argument has the logical validity of the law of identity, when the premise == the conclusion, since they are the same. He then notes, accurately, that we don't know if there was uniformity in the past. He calls it "nonsense" without God. The possibility of no uniformity is automatically nonsense to pro, with no further reasoning. Hmmm. Sounds like a certain logical fallacy I discussed earlier in this paragraph. It's not nonsense. It's just a naturalist version of the appearance of age thing.

A few more disclaimers because I think I need to state them again in case anyone didn't get the hints from my last points:
  • Proving the Biblical God STILL does not show Biblical validity or inerrancy. The two are very different.
  • God is not the only explanation.
  • And I want to point out that a lot of what he says here is theologically contestable as well. For example, did God create all? Or is man responsible for the invention of the KFC Double Down Burger with extra Grease? Some would call this blasphemy. The fact is there are many interpretations of the bible and how broadly it can be applied to ALL interactions.

Absolute Morality
I object to this very strongly. Morality is not absolute and moral standards are strongly culturally relative. All of which in fact flies in the face of most conceptions of the God hypothesis. Absolute morality makes sense only if we never question the rules of what's right. We do it all the time. Little kids watch movies that ask these questions. Pro may believe we come to the same conclusion, but there are many notable exceptions. I'm a pacifist, so there's an example. Most people believe that it is occasionally ok to kill somebody. I don't. The science on this is pretty firmly on my side too. Absolute morality has basically never been observed. There have always been exceptions. I get sick and tired of Christians proclaiming they have the moral answer to everything and then waging just as much war as everyone else.

The idea that morality is absolute because we all have a sense of it is wrong too. There are mental and intellectual handicaps for example that make it impossible for a person to distinguish right and wrong. Nor is God required for any of this. Evolution explains absolute morality perfectly well for those that believe in absolute morality, without making that morality determined by humans. Also, think about how it would work. Do our brains have a magical connection to God that activates a certain region when God thinks something is a bad idea? If so, why do people - even (and perhaps especially) Christians - make such dumb decisions?

God's rules aren't even close to a universal morality. Half of God's rules in the Bible deal with subservience to God, something which apparently humans have not had a sense at all of since Adam and Eve. It's not hard to use the Bible to justify the stoning of gay people, burning of witches, and most importantly, using any means necessary to destroy them goddam atheists. By modern standards, much of God's sense of morality for mankind seems repulsive.

There are certainly some moral rules that are just cultural conventions. Bowing to one's elders in Asian society might be an example. A morality determined by humans that is not absolute is not problematic in any way, shape or form. There's also nothing wrong with the notion that there's no absolute moral authority. I don't think killing's wrong in the case of abortion or some euthanasia, for example. Of course I believe that's morally justified. Hitler too believed he was morally right, as did Bin Laden, and any idea that pro might have that he's better morally is frankly conceited unless he can prove it. Incidentally, he can't. It's impossible to prove a moral proposition without knowing the future. This is commonly known as the "benefit of hindsight" - sometimes a morally terrible decision can still turn out to have been for the better overall when seen in terms of what results it yielded.

That's not to say society is chaos. People invent their own moral code all the time. Bin Laden and Hitler certainly did. I know I make moral decisions almost every day. Most people, as it so happens, want to get along. That's really the only basis for why our society doesn't collapse. God isn't literally defending America - America's defense comes from the "brilliant" people working in the government. The average soldier patrolling the border, the mundane tax clerk, the friendly local police officer, the president himself... all these people and their ability to inspire people to work together for the sake of everybody, in their own ways - that is what keeps a nation together.

Let me finally address appeal to the majority. Sure, the majority morality would be an appeal to the majority. But morality is not objective, so there's no need to look to the "majority" - it's perfectly fine to disagree morally (and of course face the moral consequences of your actions - like maybe going to jail). The idea that the majority is wrong most of the time only bolsters my case that they have fundamental moral disagreements with pro. There's simply no absolute morality that they can possibly be depending on here.

My Case
I submit at the outset that pro has fundamentally not argued the resolution. His three arguments are arguments for the Biblical God. I'm here to argue that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I could concede everything pro told you and pro still would not have shown this, or even provided evidence for this. He's simply attempted to argue a supernatural origin of his own observed phenomena that has little scientific basis.

The Bible changed
It's simply impossible to claim something is the inerrant word of God, and for somebody to have corrected an error in it. And I'm not just talking about that one passage where Happy Cat's name is accidentally written as "Jesus".

An obvious example is the last chapter of Mark, which is pretty clearly a later addition. Somebody realized there were some gaping holes in the book and tried to fill them (while I believe Mark's intention was to leave the ending deliberately vague). If the original Gospel of Mark did not err in any way, it would not have required an addition. The early manuscripts we rely on are frankly filled with contradictions and errors. Most reputable Bibles are full of footnotes describing where the original sources differ, and sometimes it actually matters quite a bit.

Another important example is the virgin birth, which appears to have actually just been a translation error in the early church (the Septuagint accidentally mistranslated Isiah) that went viral. This would clearly explain why the entire early church - who wrote most of the books of the New Testament - had no clue about it but then it sort of comes up out of left field all of a sudden later.

The writers were mistaken sometimes
There are also errors that we know for certain the writers made because they're literally still in every copy of the freaking Bible.

An obvious example of this is found in the Gospel of Luke, where the crowd in Nazareth attempts to throw Jesus off the cliff on which the city was built. Cool though that sounds, it's amazingly apparently that Luke hadn't been to Nazareth before, because there are no cliffs for miles. The city was certainly not built on one. Archeological excavations confirm this to be the case. Maybe they wanted to trek with Jesus some miles to get to a cliff they could throw him off, but this is far from what Luke relates.

The Bible is internally inconsistent
St Paul is a particularly troubling example. Almost every time he tries to quote scripture he quotes it wrong. He can reference it well enough but all his quotes are pretty much inaccurate. On at least one occasion, Acts 20:35, he literally makes up some words and pretends Jesus said them when Jesus said NOTHING like that: "Liek dat, ai showd yu dat yu maek cookies (an' no eate em) so dat evrione lols. Just liek Happy Cat sed: "An WTF is wid kittehs bogarten all teh cheezburgers?!! Dat sheetz gotta stop, srsl. U shud hunt and bringz back noms for de lil kitz or de sick kittehs.""

The Bible is self-contradictory
There are many well known examples. Some of them are even internal to a single book. For example, 1 Corinthians 2:15 tells people that it is spiritually ok to judge, and 1 Corinthians 4:5 says that it isn't. At least one of these statements must make the Bible errant.

With that I rest my case and turn back to my opponent for his analysis.

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-03-23 23:43:07
| Speak Round
KrazyKrazy (PRO)

I thank my opponent for extending the deadline for the debate; agreed, I should have set it longer in the first place. Based on the wideness of the topic at hand, perhaps it will be extended again. This debate IS really fun, after all.


First off, my opponent said that I defended the God of the Bible and not Biblical inerrancy. Thats not true. The Bible clearly says that God is never wrong (1 John 3:20), and that He is the ultimate author of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16). Noting that I defended the God of the Bible or Biblical inerrancy is meaningless and irrelevant. They basically mean the same thing. The topic IS Biblical inerrancy, but it can only be inerrant if God wrote it. Man is always fallacious; that’s what the Bible states. So it would be necessary if the God of the Bible is part of the topic. And thats the point. To say that we’re not talking about the God of the Bible is to not fully understand what the Bible says. It clearly says that it’s inerrant only because God wrote it. It is a necessary part of the resolution.


Logic


He said “He begins by saying that there are 3 logical laws that are universally accepted. This is problematic, however, as the claim is impossible to prove without using the same laws.” He is basically saying that it’s circular reasoning. But all philosophies and arguments have starting points and assumptions. Not all circular reasoning is fallacious. Consider this argument that logic exists:

1. If logic exists, we can make an argument.

2. We can make an argument.

3. Therefore, logic exists.

This seems like a sound argument for the existence of logic, but it’s circular reasoning. However, it’s not a fallacious use of it; because we know that logic exists. We need an ultimate standard. Say, for example, “A” is a statement. Well how do you know A? You would be forced to say “Because of “B”. How do you know B? Because of C. How do you know C? Because of D. It goes on, but it cannot go on indefinitely or forever—the stairs have to end somewhere. There has to be an ultimate standard. Lets say the ultimate standard is “M”. How do you know M? Then you would have to be forced to use the same statement. “…because of M”. So not all circular reasoning is fallacious. It only becomes fallacious if you don’t have the right to assume what your trying to prove. But we have the right to assume that logic is true, therefore the argument above is not fallacious. Now, is logic the ultimate standard? Not exactly. We have logic because we are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), so logic is a reflection of Him. So the Bible is the ultimate standard.


He said “He argues that God is reasonable and logical, but he doesn’t explain why”. I did explain why, but perhaps he accidentally not noticed it. It says in the Bible that God created us in His image (Genesis 1:27), so we are to follow His example. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks, and thus the way He expects us to think. So why is God reasonable? The answer is simple: Because there is no other alternative. The law of non-contradiction is not simply somebody’s opinion, it has to come from an ultimate authority. God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13) and all truth is in God (John 14:6), therefore truth will not contradict itself. God is that ultimate authority.


He said “Further, this entire section makes the assumption that the Bible is speaking the truth about God”. It’s not an assumption. It says in the Bible that God breathed out scripture and that He wrote the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16) and since He cannot lie (Titus 1:2), it would make sense that He would speak the truth about Himself. My opponent also said “That wouldn’t prevent him from being the creator of the laws of logic.” I never said that God created logic. I said that logic is a reflection of His thinking, since we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). A huge difference.


In his rebuttal to my rebuttal of the biocentric view, he says “it cannot actually be disproven”. It can be disproven, we simply don’t live our lives that way. The biocentric view of logic promotes and advocates nihilism, the belief that nothing is “real”. If nothing is real, that means that knowledge isn’t real either. So if somebody believes in the biocentric view—that knowledge doesn’t exist—my question is “How do you know that?” We eat food as if it is real, and if we don’t eat it, we die. That itself discourages anyone from really believing nihilism or the biocentric view.


In his rebuttal to my rebuttal of the naturalist view, he said “pro does not prove they are immaterial…objective or timeless either.” I did prove they are immaterial. They are immaterial because of the impossibility of the contrary. If the laws of logic are chemical reactions, then they are not laws and they cannot be universal; they would not extend beyond my brain. In other words, we couldn’t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Jupiter, since no one’s brain is on Jupiter. Also, if the laws of logic are just biochemical reactions in the brain, they would differ from person to person, because everyone has different reactions in his or her brain. My opponent also said there is a theory that says “our perception of logic might still be different from how logic works in reality”. Again, there is no reason to believe that. It adds unnecessary complexity to something that could be so simple. Besides, we behave as if they are real, not fake.


He said that I argued that the Biblical God is responsible for logic, but “is irrelevant because this debate is not about the existence of the biblical God.” Again, as I have stated before, they are synonymous. The topic is Biblical inerrancy; but the Bible can only be inerrant if the Biblical God authored it. And thats the point.


He said “pro hasn’t addressed every other possibility or specific variant of a possibility that there might conceivably be for why logic exists or does not exist.” I don’t have too. In the first few sentences of my first speech, I said “The highest proof that the Bible is true is that if it wasn’t, nobody could prove that anything is true.” It is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. Theres more detail in my previous speech on why that is.


My opponent took the pragmatic position to the explanation of logic. He said he uses the laws of logic because they work. Unfortunately, that isn’t the question. We all agree that the laws of logic work; they work because they’re true. The question is why do they exist in the first place? I explained that they are a reflection of His thinking (for more detail, look at my previous speech). He did not address this question by saying it “just works”, so therefore my position stands un-refuted.


Uniformity of nature


My opponent said “We have some very good evidence that even though time is lived forwards, it runs backwards”. He doesn’t mention what the evidence is. I would really like to see what the evidence is, because I don’t think it exists. It’s plainly obvious that time moves forward, as experienced by everybody on the planet. But even if scientists say that time moves backwards, then they would be wrong; because the Bible seems to indicate that time moves forward in the human perspective (it says that God isn’t limited by time). The truth of the Bible is the only reason why science is possible.


My opponent said “It might have been that God created the whole universe three seconds ago”. We know that didn’t happen because the Bible says that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. There are genealogies in the Bible (book of Genesis) from Adam and Eve, the first humans, to the Israelites. Adding up the dates gives about 6,000 years ago. Admitted, this flies in the face in the theory of evolution. I do not believe the theory of evolution happened and I would love to get into a detailed debate of how the global flood of Noah from the Bible is a perfect explanation of the world we see today. But the creation vs evolution debate is for another day, since it is not the topic.


My opponent said “…this sounds much more plausible than a universe where ‘God did it’”. Actually, much of the founders of modern science where bible-believing creationists. He didn’t use this argument, but it needs to be addressed. Many people say that if somebody holds the Bible as without error and accurate, they cannot be a good scientist. According to that standard, I guess Isaac Newton was not a scientist. Many branches of science were started out by young-earth creationists who believed in the Bible, such as Galileo Galilei, Francis Bacon, Leonardo da Vinci, Blaise Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Isaac Newton, and Louis Pasteur. There are more, but this should suffice. They believed “God did it”, but that inspired them to see how He did it.


He said “He then notes, accurately, that we don’t know if there was uniformity in the past.” My opponent took what I said out of context. I said that we don’t know if there was uniformity in the past—without the Bible. But the Bible has the explanation for why we can believe uniformity in the past. And thats the point.


Absolute morality


He said “There are mental and intellectual handicaps for example that make it impossible for a person to distinguish right and wrong.” It says in the Bible that God wrote His law on every person’s heart (Romans 2:15). So everyone knows right and wrong. Plus, my opponent cannot speak for those who are mentally retarded and say that they don’t know right and wrong; but the Bible can, because God wrote it.


He said “Do our brains have a magical connection to God that activates a certain region when God thinks something is a bad idea?” Again, the Bible says that God wrote His law on every person’s heart (Romans 2:15). For example, somebody may “think” that homosexuality is okay, but deep down, they ultimately know that it is wrong. They’re just self-deceiving themselves, the Bible says. My opponent goes on to say “If so, why do people—even Christians—make such dumb decisions?” The Bible never says that Christians don’t sin; however, there is a new attitude towards sin once somebody is saved. They then lead a changed life only possible by the work of God and the Lord Jesus Christ.


He said “It’s not hard to use the Bible to justify the stoning of gay people, burning of witches…” Homosexuality and sorcery are definitely morally wrong, and the Bible does say that people such as this should be put to death, but the death penalty for these people and the like was part of the Old Testament. The Bible clearly says that we are not part of the Old Mosaic law anymore. Now, we live in the New Covenant since Jesus Christ. Even though homosexuality is wrong, the Bible does not say to stone them in the New Covenant.


He said “…much of God’s sense of morality for mankind seems repulsive.” The word “repulsive” assumes an absolute morality. He says that there are no moral absolutes, but he used the word “repulsive”, which implies an unchanging morality. If morality is relative, then morality is reduced to a matter of opinion, such as your favorite color. If somebody said that raping, torturing, and murdering children is fun, and somebody else said that is wrong, it would be unacceptable for the murderer to say “Well that’s your opinion”. People seek justice, which they wouldn’t do if they thought that it was just a matter of opinion—no “right or wrong” answer.


He said “There are certainly some moral rules that are just cultural conventions.” That doesn’t prove moral relativism. There is a difference between a moral and a cultural norm. Take a handshake for example. If my opponent walked up to me and put out his hand for a handshake, and I just stood there and stared at him, that would be considered rude. Not shaking his hand is not wrong in and of itself, but disrespect is. It’s the disrespectful aspect that makes it wrong. And disrespect is universally wrong everywhere. See, not shaking a hand is not wrong, but disrespect is always wrong.


He said “…and any idea that pro might have that he’s better morally is frankly conceited unless he can prove it.” He went into the ad homonym attack and said that I claimed to be better morally. I never set myself in a higher moral position than anybody. I just said that somebody without a biblical worldview has no reason to be moral. Certainly, a non-christian can be moral, but there’s no reason for him to be, since all morals come from the biblical God.


My opponent didn’t use this argument explicitly, but it needs to be addressed. The most common argument for moral relativism is an appeal to tolerance—that we should tolerate all views. I highly disagree with this. First of all, evil should never be tolerated, in any circumstances. Second of all, it’s a hypocritical argument because moral relativists do not tolerate moral absolutism. Moral absolutism makes sense because it’s against evil and it’s not hypocritical or self-defeating.


Additional rebuttals


He said that the Bible changed. It took thousands of years to write the Bible, but it hasn’t changed. He said that there were many contradictions in the Bible. He mentioned one, which was between 1 Corinthians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 4:5. It isn’t a contradiction when you put it in context of the surrounding passage. 1 Corinthians 2:15 is talking about spiritual judging—judging between right and wrong, while 1 Corinthians 4:5 is referring to judging as in the court definition. All contradictions go away once you read it in it’s own context.


My opponent claimed that there is inconsistency in the Bible and referencing to the “lolcats” version. Needless to say, that is not a real Bible translation. The locates version was made up by people who wanted to mock the Bible and had no interest in what the Bible actually had to say; and the “version” is made so that it looks erroneous inconsistent, of course. So my opponent thinks that there are many literary, contradictory, and internal inconsistencies probably because he isn’t even using a real Bible translation. So unless he is willing to use a true version, his claims against it’s authenticity are invalid.



Now since the rebuttal is complete, I will now put forth new arguments.



An interesting thing about the Bible is its unique message. It is entirely different from all other religious texts. It is the only book that stresses that mankind is inherently evil, are deserving of eternal death, and there is nothing we can do to gain back our natural state. This is thought-provoking because humans tend to think good of ourselves. If humans were responsible for the content of the Bible, its concept of human nature would be a lot more good looking. While this isn’t a “proof” in and of itself, it is interesting because people wouldn’t write a book that kills human pride, unless if it was written by divine intervention (God).

A great internal proof of the Bible is the overall unity of it. The entire book was written over a 1,500 year time span, written by over 40 authors (most of them didn’t know each other), over 3 continents in 3 different languages, and consists of 66 books. The Bible was written by kings, scholars, prophets, shepherds, fishermen, a military leader, a cupbearer, a tax collector, and a priest. It was written in prisons, palaces, the wilderness (such as the dessert), places of exile, and a royal court. The writers held numerous purposes for writing in their times and wrote over controversial subjects throughout the Bible and over many different topics such as history, moral instruction, judgement, law, poetry, prophecy, and proverbs with many emotions like anger, joy, and love. All of this variety would seem to indicate its fallibility; yet, the Bible contains one message, no contradictions, and no deviation from the common theme—Jesus Christ.

The Bible’s scientific accuracy is astonishing. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, which is good because science textbooks get revised and rewritten every year; however, when it does speak something in a scientific way, it does so with blunt accuracy. The following is a list of some of the scientific facts found in the Bible:


The Earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).

The Earth is supported by nothing (Job 26:7).

The stars cannot be counted (Genesis 15:5).

The universe is expanding (Isaiah 40:22).

There are valleys in the oceans (2 Samuel 22:16).

There are mountains in the oceans (Jonah 2:6).

There are springs and fountains in the oceans (Genesis 7:11; Genesis 8:2; Proverbs 8:28; Job 38:16).

There are ocean currents (Psalm 8:8).

The water cycle exists (Job 26:8; Job 36:27-28; Ecclesiastes 1:6-7).

Air has weight (Job 28:25).

Each snowflake has a different yet beautifully symmetrical pattern (Job 38:22).

There are air currents and streams (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

There is one human race (Genesis 3:20; Corinthians 15:45; Acts 17:26).

The life of the creature is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11).

There are principles of health and sanitation (Leviticus 12-14).


There are possibly many more, but this amount should suffice in getting the point across. For thousands of years, people believed that the Earth was flat; however, people who believed the Bible already knew that the Earth was round in the first place. Of course, society probably mocked them for believing such a ludicrous idea at the time. In the nineteenth century, many biologists believed that each race was descended from a certain kind of animal. They thought that caucasians were the highest race and blacks were the lowest race. This was actually taught in science textbooks throughout the public schools in the early nineteen hundreds. Now, genetics have confirmed that there is one blood—one human race, confirming the Bible. For thousands of years, people used bloodletting to supposedly cure illnesses. This was the practice of the doctor intentionally bleeding the patient/victim to get the infection out of the blood. This led to the death of George Washington. Scientists later realized that doing so was counterproductive, confirming that the life of the creature is in the blood, just like the Bible says. Now, does science prove the Bible to be true? No, that is a misunderstanding. The Bible proves science to be true. That’s really how it works, because again, only the truth of the Bible makes knowledge possible according to the 3 conditions of intelligibility--logic, uniformity of nature, absolute morality.

Prophecy is an amazing aspect of the Bible that silences many critics. Unlike famous false prophets in the modern world like Nostradamus, the prophecies in the Bible are extremely detailed and many were prophesied over hundreds of years before the events had occurred. For example, consider Daniel, a jewish prophet in Babylon in the 6th century B.C. He interpreted two sets of dreams. He prophesied the whole Middle Eastern history over the next half-century. He described four powerful empires that would come to rise and then fall. They were in order: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. He also saw the conquest of Alexander the Great. He saw the division of the Greek empire by four of Alexander’s four surviving generals. Many critics accuse Daniel of saying the prophecies after they had taken place, but modern textual scholars validate the early origin of the prophecies and confirm Daniel to be the original author. The prophet Ezekiel predicted the destruction of a phoenician city named Tyre. Isaiah prophesied the coming reign of a Persian king named Cyrus 200 years before his birth. Another prophecy came from Micah, who was in 7th century era B.C. He foretold Jesus Christ to be born in Bethlehem. Christ’s early parents didn’t live even close to Bethlehem and lived in a small village called Nazareth. God used Roman census for taxation to send His parents south on an arduous journey to Bethlehem. This was predicted over 600 years before this occurred. Not Jesus nor Luke (the person who recorded this) could have manipulated these events. There are about 300 prophecies that are fulfilled in the Bible, some of them are yet to come, such as the ones in the Book of Revelation. The following are a list of some other prophecies in the Bible: Jesus was born of a virgin, born in Bethlehem, known for His wisdom, lived without sin, healed the sick, preached good news, entered Jerusalem in victory, was betrayed by a close friend, sold for thirty pieces of silver, didn’t speak when accused, beaten and spat upon, crucified with sinners, He was pierced through his side, buried with the rich, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and exalted at the right hand of God.

In addition to prophecy, archeology is another proof of that confirms the Bible. One archeological finding was the Tel Dan stele. Many nations in the Middle East at the time used steles to record great events and accomplishments of rulers. The Tel Dan stele says, “House of David.” This confirms that the United Monarchy under King David existed in history silences skeptics who denied that David ever existed. Another finding was the Meesba stele. The Meesba stele or Moabite stone mentions Meesha’s revolt against Israel. Meesha was the King of Moab. The stele also mentions Omri, the King of Israel, and David of the United Monarchy. It also refers to Yahweh, which is the Hebrew term for Jesus Christ. Another archeological finding was the Nabonidus cylinder. The Nabonidus cylinder was made by King Nabonidus of Babylonia. It mentioned his son, Belshazzar. Skeptics of the Bible denied the account of the book of Daniel. Daniel 5:16 says, “But I have heard that you can give interpretations and solve problems. Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around your neck and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.” This text now makes perfect sense because Nabonidus was in a cogency with his son Belshazzar, who was the crown prince of Babylon. So that would make Daniel the “third ruler in the kingdom.” Another finding was the Caiaphas ossuary. In 1990, the Caiaphas ossuary was discovered in a burial cave located in the Peace Forest section of Jerusalem. The cave had numerous ossuaries, one of them was for Caiaphas. He was a Jewish high priest who was an authority at Jesus’ trial. This proves that Caiaphas existed and that the Gospels are history, not mythology. Another finding was a Pilate dedication stone. In the 1960s, a Pilate dedication stone was found in a Roman amphitheater in Caesarea Maritima. It was a block made out of limestone and had an inscription on it. The stone says, “Tiberieum, (Pon)tius Pilatus, (Praef)ectus Iuda(eae).” This proves Pilatus’ existence, which many people questioned (just because he was in the Bible). Many people denied the Bible’s truth claims before the late 1800s because it mentioned the Hittites (2 Kings 7:6). They mocked the Bible since there was no evidence of the Hittites at the time. However, archeologists found evidence in 1876 concerning the culture of the Hittites. By the early 20th century, their existence was common knowledge. The Bible has proved itself repeatedly. Many more examples could be given, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, but this amount should suffice in getting the point across.

Another proof of the Bible is its indestructibility. In all of known human history, the Bible is the most attacked book in the world. People have tried viciously to destroy it more than any other text (religious or not) from the Roman empire to the communist governments in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries such as the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and China. Today, it is the most popular and widely published book in the world.

The last proof of the Bible is it’s unique power to transform so many lives. The Bible has a unique authority that is powerful enough to change people’s lifestyles more so than any other book. Hard-core criminals have been rehabilitated by it’s influence, homosexuals set free by it’s power, drug addicts cured by it’s energy, porn stars turned around by it’s might, porn addicts healed by it’s life, and sinners rebuked by it’s truth. No other book has came even close in comparison. This book is alive! This makes sense because the Bible says “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12).


I now wait for ADMIN’s arguments and counters.


Return To Top | Posted:
2015-03-25 08:00:09
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
I thank pro for continuing his case.

Just because God (who is inerrant) exists, and the Bible claims to be written by God, it does not logically follow that the Bible is inerrant. If the Bible were errant, then the statement that it is written by God could also be false. As such, although Biblical inerrancy may require pro to prove the Christian God (I mean, if God didn't exist then the Bible would err on the question of whether God exists), the existence of the Christian God does not otherwise conversely prove Biblical inerrancy. It would not be hard to imagine a Christian God existing who is exactly as pro believes Him to be, other than that he didn't write the Bible.

Where does logic come from?
The logic of my opponent here depends on the bible being true - that is, the Bible as the ultimate standard of logic. I concede that it's fine to depend on this, but only if my opponent proves it. The whole resolution is about proving that the bible is true, not assuming that the bible is the ultimate standard for all logic and then trying to use that to show that the Bible is both logically coherent and necessary for logic (and how exactly this is meant to prove biblical inerrancy, I am just as confused as you probably are). This is also a subtle knife, as previously pro was trying to show that God was the ultimate standard for logic as opposed to the Bible. The distinction is very important to this debate. When it comes down to it, the argument generally just links very weakly at best with the resolution.

What pro needs to do if he wants to win this argument is prove that the bible is the basis for all logic, and then clearly explain why that means the bible is inerrant - not presuppose the assumption that the bible is the basis for all logic and pretend that, even if that were true, he's won the debate.

A passage in Genesis does not prove that man is created in the image of God. After all, if the bible were not true, then the statement would bear no relevancy to the debate. The assumption of the truth of the bible does not prove the bible is actually true. Similarly, statements in the bible that a God exists who is consistent with logic - even if the existence of some true statements made every statement in the bible true - does not show that this God is the ultimate standard for all logic. I, too, am a being consistent with logic according to my opponent's own reasoning, so there's no reason to suppose that I am not the ultimate standard. Further, the regression problem of logic that pro mentioned equally applies to God as well. Why isn't there some more ultimate standard than God? How can it even be proven that there is a very ultimate absolute standard for logic?

Just because the Bible states that God must be reasonable and logical, it does not follow that any God who may exist actually is. That would presuppose each of biblical inerrancy and God as the standard for logic. It simply doesn't work. Similarly, if the Bible were errant, we could reasonably assume it is also errant about whether or not God wrote it, a point I made in the previous round but which pro never answered.

And that's the whole of his logical argument - the assumption of Biblical inerrancy, the loose claim that the Bible proves God is logical, the shoddy analysis that this means that God must be the ultimate standard for all logic, and then the weird deduction that since the inerrant Bible said God wrote it, and God is perfectly logical, that means the Bible must be perfectly true. Strangest argument for biblical inerrancy in world history (probably).

Is naturalism viable?
Pro states that the laws of logic cannot possibly be material. He has not proven it. His "proof" is merely the claim of universality of logic, which not only doesn't follow (brain in a vat scenario), but is merely another thing he has not proven. To other alternatives he has said that the universe could be simpler in his view. The ancient Hebrews believed the world was a flat disk and that no other planets existed - it was indeed much simpler to argue that "God did it" was an explanation for literally everything. Unfortunately they turned out wrong, and simplicity is not the ultimate standard for truth. Just because something seems easy to believe now does not make it unchangeable reality.

Naturalism is not the only contrary explanation. If pro wants to show the impossibility of the contrary, he needs to show the impossibility of every other possible viewpoint. It's an extremely high onus, but he has literally set it for himself.

Why does logic work?
A very important difference in our positions is that I do not concede that logic is necessarily true at all. I'm perfectly happy to have even the most basic of logical axioms disproven by generations to come. I have no doubt that our most basic ideas about the universe will seem caveman-like at best in 10,000 years, which on a cosmic scale is a very short period of time. So I don't believe it has to be true that logic works because it's true. We don't understand logic well enough to say that. To see why logic works we first need to understand how consciousness works exactly, unfortunately. But that does not mean God is the only possible viable explanation, and that's all I'm trying to show.

Is nature uniform?
There are many things commonly experienced by people that do not actually exist. The experience of having seen something before when you haven't is one example.  Often we haven't actually seen something but it feels familiar. One could use that to jump to the old "glitch in the matrix" conclusion that we are part of some supercomputer, or we could use that to not jump to conclusions and use neuroscience to find out why (and as it happens, the phenomenon can be quite easily explained by modern science). As such just because we experience something - say, God - does not make it real. And further, it does not in any way follow from this that the truth of the Bible is the only thing that makes science possible.

The theory that time runs backwards is one of the best explanations we know of of an important and well-known problem in physics, namely how particles can appear to know what will happen before they get there in quantum mechanics. There are basically two explanations for this: either the particles actually traveled in reverse (time moving backwards) or they literally time-traveled, changing reality based on whether they were observed or not. There currently isn't enough evidence for either theory. Nevertheless in ascertaining which is correct, something that physicists are working on very intently, they aren't going to Sunday School.

I find it ironic that pro argues that God is the basis for science but then also believes in biblical literalism, that the Bible says the universe was created 6,000 years ago (roughly speaking we might assume - the usual figure is a few hundred years further back). Numerous bits of evidence indicate that nothing worthy of mention happened 4,000 years ago. It's absurd to claim that in the past 6000 years we had a global flood, but also that there are massive pyramids sitting around from before that time showing no evidence of fluvial erosion. If the universe is indeed as logical as a perfectly logical God, then biblical literalism cannot possibly be true. Evolution is the least of the problems with this theory. The biggest questions I've always had with this are - how exactly is this the simplest explanation that pro so searches for, and why did God supposedly create so much evidence with appearance of age that he DIDN'T create the whole universe 6000 or so years ago?

Just because somebody believes in the bible doesn't mean that they are not a scientist - it merely means that the believe in certain things that are not scientific. Worth noting that two (and sort of a third) of the guys he mentioned were excommunicated from the mainstream catholic church for contradicting the bible, but anyway, I'd like to see evidence they saw the world as being young earth. I was under the impression that basically none of them talked about it much because it wasn't what they studied. Further, the whole argument is an appeal to authority - and it's not even a good authority, since they lived in a time before the evidence would have been gathered to date things.

The bible may explain why we've always had uniformity. But pro doesn't show THAT we've always had uniformity. Nor does he show that the bible's explanation for why must be the correct one. And I think that's the point. Pro is rattling off tired arguments for God, passing them off for somehow proving biblical inerrancy, and then pretending that he's won the debate. Unfortunately he hasn't even done much to support the arguments he's presenting.

Is morality absolute?
My opponent's logic presupposes his conclusion yet again - the idea that the Bible's description of the same morality inscribed on the hearts of every person being a fact is something he needs to prove, not assume. Oh, and since pro is a biblical literalist - where exactly is it written on the heart? There have been numerous hearts medically examined in human history, and the ten commandments were inscribed on none of them. Ultimately this is nothing more than pro needing to back up his statements in some way, then refute my evidence to the contrary - notably, the fact that people exist who literally can't understand the concept of "solving problems" let alone knowing complex moral laws. These are people who are sent to institutions - the type that know nothing but to scream at anything they fail to understand, and fail to understand something as simple as meeting another person, or how to deal with the fact there might be a balloon in their path. Others don't scream. They hit. They're usually people who would have multiple convictions for assault if the insanity defense didn't exist, and who have no problem killing anyone if they have a problem and are not restrained. It's an extreme example of intellectual disability, for sure, but the exception disproves the rule. If my opponent says I cannot speak for them, then he needs to provide a counter-narrative that explains to me why such a person almost killed my brother about a year ago while he was working at a service for intellectually disabled people, or why my mother, who is the HR/recruitment manager at the same organization, has to call an ambulance for her own staff so often.

Let's talk about this "ultimately deep down" idea. I know for certain that I disagree with the bible on certain points. Everyone who doesn't believe in the bible will automatically accept this argument, and claims that we're all wrong just because the bible says so do not fly until my opponent proves that the bible is inerrant, something that he has curiously little interest in focusing on. What about Christians? Well, consider that even Christians seriously diverge in their interpretation of the bible. While Christians generally agree with biblical morality, very few of them actually agree that homosexuality is wrong. As such the bible is still a fallible standard, since almost everybody must in some way be coming to the wrong conclusions about it.

Pro's explanations of his perspective of the new covenant are fine, but he needs to prove it must be absolutely true. He's setting himself a burden to show not only that the bible is infallible but that his particular interpretation of the words of the bible are infallible - thus whenever he states that the bible clearly says something, I suppose it would only be reasonable to ask - where?

The word repulsive does not assume an absolute morality - something may be repulsive to me but not to you. I don't really like coconut for example, but other people do. I have a personal moral objection to coconuts (they taste horrible) that is not shared by other people. In much the same way, I find euthanasia ok in some circumstances, but not in others. There are those with different moral views on that topic. I find abortion to be generally ok. There are those who disagree on that topic. Personally, if somebody said killing children is fun, I'd say "Well that's your opinion" to them too. They may find it ok morally, and there's no problem with that. There might be a problem with them actually acting on that morality, but having a moral opinion is not inherently problematic. We had another user on edeb8 some months ago who was a zoophile and thought sex with animals was fun. That's his opinion too, and he's just as entitled to it as somebody who thinks it morally abhorrent. If he actually does it, then it's a different story. His idea of justice would be to allow sex with animals, considering himself oppressed for not being able to do so... and mine might be different.

The idea that moral relativism can be reduced down to a more absolute moral principal is conjecture at best. The word "respect" can't be particularly well defined - is it disrespectful to kill somebody? Even if they were really, really pushing you? And as such, since there isn't a single agreed answer to questions like that, the word respect is itself only relatively defined. The dictionary itself only defines respect as "due regard" for others. And I might add, numerous people have no problem with not showing due regard for others. Today I regardlessly bumped into somebody at the train station and hurried on to catch my train without saying sorry (as I was very late). That would be very "disrespectful" to some but not to others.

I have no biblical worldview and plenty of reason to be moral. The assertion that all morals come from any biblical God remains unproven, and indeed doesn't account for moral principals which go against those of the bible - I am very strongly opposed to the death penalty, for instance, and that's a moral conviction I hold more strongly than almost anything else. My personal main non-God reason to be moral - compassion. And that doesn't require any divine intervention, just a recognition that you're not the only person out there in the world. Our ability to empathize is perfectly rationally able to evolve and be taught.

Rebuttals
My opponent asserts the contrary, that the bible has not changed. That's nice for an assertion. Unfortunately it doesn't really refute my analysis that it has. As new material is discovered, modern bibles are being constantly revised.

My opponent explains the contradiction by claiming one form of judging is spiritual while the other is not. That's a fine explanation, but it doesn't explicitly say it in context. And that's especially so when you read it in the context of the times, as court and spiritual judging were pretty much the same thing back then. Paul himself was an ex-prosecutor for spiritual crimes and would have been very aware of this.

All claims against the bible I made will hold true for any translation my opponent wants to put forward. He can cross reference the same passages to the King James, New International, or any other version he pleases, and they will not change. As such, this is not a valid refutation (particularly of Luke, which reads particularly laughably in the NIV as more accurate sources have come to light since the KJV). Of course, I will gladly defend that the LOLcat bible is the best out of all of these translations because:
  1. it's readable - who can understand all this jargon and thees and thous? Words like cheezburgers, now that we can all understand.
  2. it's accurate - after all, it's pretty clear that the bible is written for cats - as the beginning of the book of John says "In the beginz there was the Meow"

Unique message

Scientology believes mankind is inherently evil. Islam believes people deserve eternal death. All the abrahamic religions also agree we can do nothing to go back to our natural state.

Not all humans think good of themselves. Many commit suicide, like Jesus essentially did. Humans can also have a mean view of human nature. Ayn Rand is one such example. Machiavelli is another. Of course it's not a proof, and it shouldn't be weighted at all in this debate.


Overall unity

The same basic argument can be made for any holy texts, such as taoist and islamic writings. Many religions were created over a greater span of time than even Christianity, such as the religion of ancient Egypt. Again, this whole argument has very little relevance to the debate. And as to whether the bible contains any deviation from the theme of Jesus, I'd like to know how the creation is in any way connected with Jesus. Sure it's necessary for Jesus, but you could have the creation without Jesus and the bible would still make sense. He's hardly the only theme.


Scientific accuracy

For a book that literally miscalculates the value of Pi, it's a strange argument to be making, but let's examine this:

Earth as a sphere - not only is this passage very vague at best, but this was known to scientists well before Isiah's time, as people had indeed been to the southern hemisphere. The Egyptians knew about it for hundreds of years prior, in fact.

The Earth being supported by nothing - again, not a clear passage.

There is one human race - explain the finals of the 100m sprint at the Olympics every year then. How come black people always win if we're all the same? The fact is we're not.

Life in the blood - this is scientifically nonsense. There is no physical "life" in the blood that is not in other cells of the human body.

Health and sanitation - known before this time. Some of the bible's health advice is pretty crazy too if you want to talk to any christian scientists who argue against vaccines and such.

I'll refute these in more detail next round - it's been a crazy week for me and I'm almost out of time. The vast majority of the other prophecies he's mentioned are either false, known prior to the time, or lucky guesses at best (the bible also contains many false prophecies - indeed Mark manages to cite an inversion of a prophecy EVERY SINGLE TIME he cites one, by constantly referencing the destruction of Israel).


Even if all this were true, however - even if pro proves all these prophecies were right and 99% of the bible is accurate, that is still insufficient to show biblical inerrancy. Unless he can show why this argument proves the resolution (as opposed to merely proving that the Bible is a good book) then it carries no weight and must fail.


The resolution is negated.


Return To Top | Posted:
2015-04-01 06:31:29
| Speak Round
KrazyKrazy (PRO)

Logic

This is the ultimate proof that the Bible is true in all things: The Bible alone can make sense of the standards by which we evaluate whether or not something is true. In other words, if the Bible were not true, than we couldn’t prove anything to be true. The laws of logic represent a standard by which we judge truth claims. Everybody knows these laws internally. The law of non-contradiction is one example. The statements “The car is in the garage” and “The car is not in the garage” cannot be both true at the same time and in the same sense. Everybody assumes that these laws are the same everywhere and apply at all times—no exceptions. But why does everybody or anybody know these things?


If people consider the Bible to be true, people find that we can make sense of the laws of logic. The Bible says that God’s mind is the standard for all knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Since God is beyond time and upholds the universe, we should expect the laws of logic to apply everywhere at all times in the universe. There cannot be an exception to a law of logic because God’s mind is sovereign over all truth. We know logic because we are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) so we are able to think in a way that is consistent with His nature. So when we take the Bible as true, we find that the laws of logic make sense.


If people consider the Bible as not true, then people find that we are left without a foundation for laws of logic. How could we know, apart from God, that laws of logic work everywhere? After all, none of us have universal knowledge. We have not experienced the future nor have we travelled to distant regions of the universe. Yet we assume that laws of logic will work in the future as they have in the past and that they work in the distant cosmos as they work here. But how could we possibly know that apart form revelation from God?


My opponent said in a previous round that we can believe in logic because it works in the past, but that’s pointless because that isn’t the question. This is the question: How do we know that the laws of logic will work in the future or in regions of space that we have never visited? Only the Biblical worldview can make sense of the universal, exception-less, unchanging nature of laws of logic. Apart from the Bible’s truth, we have no reason to assume that the laws of logic apply everywhere at all times, yet we all do assume this. Only the Christian has a good reason to presume the continued reliability of logic. The non-Christian doesn’t have a reason in his own professed worldview, so he is being irrational—believing something without a good reason. The non-Christian indeed has a blind faith but the Christian faith in the Bible makes knowledge possible.


Another thing concerning logic, my opponent said that he doesn’t believe that logic is true—“A very important difference in our positions is that I do not concede that logic is necessarily true at all”. Then my question is: How do you know that the logic you used to make that claim is true? Or did you not use logic at all, so that it doesn’t apply? Those are the only two options. If you did use logic to make that conclusion that logic is not true, then how do you know that that logic that you just used to make that conclusion is true? If you don’t think t’s true, then you don’t have a reason to believe the claim that logic isn’t true. But if you didn’t use logic, how did you arrive to that conclusion that logic isn’t true?



Uniformity of Nature

Another standard that we use to evaluate truth claims is the foundation of science. Science allows us to describe the predictable and consistent way in which the universe normally behaves. It also makes successful predictions about certain future states. For example, if somebody does an experiment today and does the same experiment tomorrow, they expect to get the same result if the conditions are the same. This happens the same way every time—if the conditions are the same, They will get the same result. Science is based on an underlying uniformity in nature. But why should there be uniformity in nature and how do we know about it?


We all presume that the future will be like the past in terms of the basic operation of nature. This does not mean that Friday will be exactly like Monday—conditions change. But it does mean that things like gravity will work the same on Friday as they have on Monday. With great precision astronomers are able to calculate years in advance the positions of planets, the timing of eclipses, and so on—only because the universe operates in such a consistent way. We all know that (in basic ways) the universe will behave in the future as it has in the past. Science would be impossible without this critical principle. But what is the foundation for this principle?


The Bible provides that foundation. According to the biblical worldview, God has chosen to uphold the universe in a consistent way for our benefit. He has promised us (Genesis 8:22) that the basic cycles of nature will continue to be in the future as they have been in the past. Although specific circumstances change, the basic laws of nature (such as gravity) will continue to work in the future as they have in the past. Interestingly, only God is in a position to tell us on His own authority that this will be true. According to the Bible, God is beyond time, and so only He knows what the future will be. But we are within time and have not experienced the future. The only way we could know the future will be (in certain ways) like the past is because God has told us in His Word that it will be.


Since only the Bible can make sense of the standards of knowledge, it may seem perplexing at first that people who deny the Bible are able to have knowledge. Non-Christians are able to use laws of logic and the methods of science with great success—despite the fact that such procedures only make sense in light of what the Bible teaches. How is this inconstancy explained? How is it that people deny the truth of the Bible and yet simultaneously rely upon the truth of the Bible?


The Bible itself gives us the resolution to this paradox. The Bible says that God has revealed Himself to everyone (Romans 1:18-21). God has hardwired knowledge of Himself into every human being, such that we all have inescapable knowledge of God. However, people have rebelled against God—they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). People go to great lengths to convince themselves and others that they do not know what, in fact, they must know. They are denying the existence of a God who is rightly angry at them for their rebellion against Him.


But, since all men are made in God’s image, we are able to use the knowledge of logic and uniformity that He has placed within us, even if we inconsistently deny the God that makes such knowledge possible. So the fact that even unbelievers are able to use logic and science is a proof that the Bible really is true. When we understand the Bible, we find that what it teaches can make sense of those things necessary for science and reasoning. The truth of the Bible is inescapably certain. For if the Bible were not true, we couldn’t know anything at all. It turns out that the worldview described by the Bible is the only worldview that can make sense of all those things necessary for knowledge.


The truth of the Bible is obvious to anyone willing to fairly investigate it. The Bible is uniquely self-consistent and extraordinarily authentic. It has changed the lives of millions of people who have placed their faith in Christ. It has been confirmed countless times by archaeology and other sciences. It possesses divine insight into the nature of the universe and has made correct predictions about distant future events with perfect accuracy. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, and it demonstrates this claim by making knowledge possible. It is the standard of standards. The proof of the Bible is that unless it’s truth is presupposed, we couldn’t prove anything at all.


That proves that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.



Absolute Morality

Now concerning the fact that morality is absolute. Pretty much everybody believes that raping and murdering children for fun is wrong. Now, a moral relativist already believes that morality is relative, that his moral “opinion” is not any better than the other person’s moral “opinion”. If that is the case, then every moral relativist has no right to tell somebody that murdering and raping children for fun is wrong, since he believes that his moral opinion is no better than the child rapist/murderer. The moral relativist has no right to say that anything is wrong in fact, since he believes that his morality is no better/worse than anybody else. And that’s the whole notion of moral relativism—it’s right/wrong for you but not for me. The problem is that if moral relativism is true, then nothing is fundamentally wrong: not murder, not raping, not stealing, not lying. And yet people cannot live consistently by such an amoral standard. They say that people should not rape and murder. But when they use the words “should not”, then they are enforcing their own personal moral code on other people, which in turn contradicts moral relativism. Moral relativism doesn’t hold up it’s own weight.


Now take this circumstance into consideration. There are two moral relativists in a room. One of them says “I believe that morality is relative, everybody determines their own morality for themselves”. Then, the other takes a gun to the other guy’s head and says “I’m going to shoot and kill you”. The guy says “um what what um what…you can’t do that!”. The other guy says “Why not? According to moral relativism, I make my own morality. And mine says I can kill you”. The guy who has a gun to his head cannot argue with him because he’s right. If moral relativism were true, then you can’t tell somebody that what their doing is wrong, since both moral positions are equally valid.


But how does every single government and criminal justice system work? They impose morality and execute punishment for evildoers. This is because ultimately, everybody believes in absolute morality; some people just may not want to confess it. This is because if morality is absolute, then there must be a law giver (God) who gives the moral code. If that is the case, then we are accountable to Him after we die. A very scary thought. Everybody has done something wrong, so everybody deserves punishment. That punishment is being thrown into the lake of fire for all eternity and forever. A very terrifying thought indeed. But the good news, is that the God who can condemn us to the lake of fire for eternity is also the God who came down to Earth in the flesh, under the name of Jesus Christ, who died for the unlovable—us. He exchanged His righteousness for our sinfulness. He took our sinfulness and died with it to endure our punishment. Then He was resurrected to prove that He can overcome death. All we have to do is believe that He did that, then He saves us on the spot.


I say this because ultimately, this isn’t an intellectual issue; it’s a heart issue. As explained earlier, everybody ultimately believes in the biblical principles necessitated for knowledge and believes in the biblical God.


Rebuttals

Instead of responding to all of my opponent’s arguments and rebuttals and counter-rebuttals, it just goes to say that all of my opponent’s arguments are invalid because he cannot give a foundation for the laws of logic. In fact, the laws of logic are a biblical principle that he is using, in which the Bible is the foundation. So all of his arguments are thereby refuted by default. He’s assuming biblical principles in attempt to disprove the Bible. The fact that he’s using logic disproves his position; because the Bible alone gives the foundation for logic.


He says many times again and again throughout his last post “If the Bible were errant…”. Thats the thing: It’s not, as I have already proven. Take for example, contradictions. Me and my opponent both know that contradictions are always false—no exceptions. The law of non-contradiction states that any contradiction is false; you cannot have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship in which the letter A represents any claim. But few people ask “Why is this law true” and “Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning?” The Christian can answer these questions For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. We know, in a finite and limited way, how God thinks because He has revealed some of His thoughts through His Word. God made us in His image (Genesis 1:27) and therefore we are to follow His example (Ephesians 5:1). The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks, and thus the way He expects us to think. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13), and all truth is in God (John 14:6; Colossians 2:3), therefore truth will not contradict itself. Since God is constantly upholding the universe by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the consistent Christian expects that no contradiction will ever occur in the universe. Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, His thoughts would necessarily be abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are no made of matter, they apply everywhere,and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are a prerequisite for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God. Laws of logic make sense in a Christian worldview. But other world views cannot account for them. For example, apart form the Bible, how could we know that contradictions are always false? We could only say that they have been false in our experience. But our experiences are very limited, and no one has experienced the future. So if someone asserted that he or she has finally discovered two contradictory claims that are both true, the non-Christian has no basis for dismissing such an assertion. Only in a biblical worldview can we know that contradictions cannot occur in reality; only the Christian has a basis for the law of non-contradiction, or laws of logic in general.


My opponent keeps saying again and again that I’m presupposing the truth of the Bible, and he is right. My opponent is also presupposing the truth of the Bible. If he didn’t, then he wouldn’t try to use logic, since that’s a biblical principle, as I have already shown. He said “The whole resolution is about proving that the Bible is true, not assuming that the bible is the ultimate standard for all logic…” He misunderstands my argument. I’m saying that we have to assume the truth of the Bible. Because unless it’s truth is presupposed, we couldn’t prove anything at all, as I have already shown.


I would rebut his arguments against the Bible, but he rebutted himself (even without knowing it), because he is assuming biblical principles (laws of logic) in order to argue against the Bible. So I rest my case.


However, for the sake of making it a good debate, I will rebut his arguments; but there really is no point, because he is using biblical principles in order to argue against the Bible—refuting himself.


The Value of Pi—He said that the Bible miscalculates the value of Pi; this is not so.

In 1 Kings 7:23 there is an intriguing statement: ‘And he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.’ A similar account is given in the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 4:2.

From time to time skeptics have used these verses to ridicule the accuracy of the Bible by claiming that, if one uses the figures stated, the circumference of the vessel divided by its diameter gives 3.0, instead of the value pi, 3.14159…).

Closer examination shows there are at least two possible explanations.

1 The first concerns the meaning of the word cubit, and how it would have been used in measuring the vessel. A cubit was the length of a man’s forearm from the elbow to the extended fingertips. The Hebrew cubit was about 45 centimeters (18 inches). It is obvious that a man's forearm does not readily lend itself to the measurement of fractions of a forearm. In the Bible half a cubit is mentioned several times, but there is no mention of a third part of a cubit or a fourth part of a cubit, even though these fractions of ‘a third part’ and ‘a fourth part’ were used in volume and weight measurements. It therefore seems highly probable that any measurement of more than half a cubit would have been counted as a full cubit, and any measurement of less than half a cubit would have been rounded down to the nearest full cubit.
 From 1 Kings 7:23 (‘a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about’), it appears that the circumference was measured with ‘a line’, i.e. a piece of string or cord on which the distance was marked, and this length would then have been measured off in cubits by the measurer, using his own or someone else’s forearm, or possibly a cubit-long rod. Similarly the diameter would have been marked on a line and ‘cubitized’ in the same way.
 If the actual diameter was 9.65 cubits, for example, this would have been reckoned as 10 cubits. The actual circumference would then have been 30.32 cubits. This would have been reckoned as 30 cubits (9.6 cubits diameter gives 30.14 circumference, and so on). The ratio of true circumference to true diameter would then have been 30.32÷ 9.65 = 3.14, the true value for pi, even though the measured value (i.e. to the nearest cubit) was 30 ÷ 10 = 3.
 While the above seems reasonable, we have no way of knowing for certain whether the measurements were approximated in this way. However, even if it is assumed that the measurements given were precisely 10 and 30 cubits, the following appears to provide a definitive answer.

2 Verse 26 of 1 Kings 7 says that the vessel in question had a brim which ‘was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies’ (KJV), or a rim ‘like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom’ (NIV), i.e. the brim or rim turned outward, suggesting the curvature of a lily.


Let us consider the details given in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2. These are:

1 The diameter of 10 cubits was measured ‘from brim to brim’ (v. 23), i.e. from the topmost point of the brim on one side to the topmost point of the brim on the other side.

2 The circumference of 30 cubits was measured with a line, ‘round about’ (v. 23), i.e. the most natural meaning of these words is that they refer to the circumference of the outside of the main body of the tank, measured by a string pulled tightly around the vessel below the brim. It is very obvious that the diameter of the main body of the tank was less than the diameter of the top of the brim. And it is also obvious that the circumference of 30 cubits could have been measured at any point down the vertical sides of the vessel, below the brim. For a measured circumference of 30 cubits, we can calculate what the external diameter of the vessel would have been at that point from the formula:

diameter=circumference ÷ pi=30 cubits ÷ 3.14=9.55 cubits.

Thus the external diameter of the vessel at the point where the circumference was measured must have been 9.55 cubits.

It is thus abundantly clear that the Bible does not defy geometry with regard to the value of pi, and in particular it does not say that pi equals 3.0. Skeptics who allege an inaccuracy are wrong, because they fail to take into account all the data. The Bible is reliable, and seeming discrepancies vanish on closer examination.


Earth as a sphere/supported by nothing—He says that the passage is vague. It is in fact, not vague at all. The Bible indicates that the earth is round. Consider Isaiah 40:22 which mentions the “circle of the earth.” This description is certainly fitting—particularly when the earth is viewed from space; the earth always appears as a circle since it is round. The same is true for Job 26:7 when it says “hangs the earth on nothing”. It’s pretty clear that it gives an image of the earth floating in empty space.


There is one human race—He says that there are more human races, appealing to black winners at the Olympics with their racial differences and characteristics. The truth, though, is that these so-called “racial characteristics” are only minor variations among people groups. If one were to take any two people anywhere in the world, scientists have found that the basic genetic differences between these two people would typically be around 0.2 percent—even if they came from the same people group. But these so-called “racial” characteristics that people think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.) account for only 0.012 percent of human biological variation. Really, there aren’t different “colors”, just different shades of the same color.


Life is in the blood—He says that it is “scientifically nonsense”. Every single cell in the human body needs oxygen to metabolize the nutrients released from food to energy. And the cells cannot get that oxygen except through the blood—the transporter of oxygen. Indeed the life of the flesh is really in the blood.


Principles of health and sanitation—He says that the advice is crazy, but doesn’t explain how it’s “crazy”. It’s just a claim. He also says that there are some Christian scientists who don’t like vaccines. Well first of all, the Bible doesn’t necessarily say anything about vaccines. Second of all, there are also evolutionary scientists who don’t like vaccine usages either.


Unity—He says that other religious text have unity, but there is no such thing in other texts. The Bible was written over a period of roughly 2,000 years by 40 different authors from three continents, who wrote in three different languages. These facts alone make the Bible one of a kind, but there are many other details that make it even more extraordinary that defy natural explanation (as explained in my 2nd post). And there is only one theme—Jesus Christ, from Genesis to Revelation. He asked “I’d like to know how the creation is in any way connected with Jesus?” He created it; that makes it pretty well connected. Not to mention dying for us.


Prophecies—He says that the majority of the prophecies that I’ve mentioned are false, known prior to the time, or lucky guesses. Yet, he doesn’t explain how; he just kinda “says it”. I’ve mentioned some of the prophecies, and they’re accuracy and authenticity are shown to anybody who is willing to fairly investigate them.


Unique message—He said that scientology teaches that mankind is evil. That’s just plain false. Scientology believes in the inherent goodness of man and teaches that it is despicable and utterly beneath contempt to tell a man he must repent or that he is evil. On the other hand, the bible teaches that man is a sinner and the only hope for him is that he receive Christ as his Lord and Savior (Romans 6:23). Everybody who watches/judges this debate do the research for themselves—scientology believes in the goodness of humankind. My opponent also said that Islam believes people deserve eternal death. That’s not exactly true either. Although Muslims do believe that people who don’t do good works deserve eternal death, they also believe that people must do good works to obtain heaven. So it relies on the goodness of man to get into paradise. However, the Bible teaches that nobody can get into heaven on his own because everybody is evil. The Bible teaches that everybody needs Jesus Christ’s righteousness; that they just need to take Him as their Lord and Savior. My opponent also said that all of the abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) believe that mankind can’t do anything to go back to our natural state. Islam believes that man can do good on his own. The all-important difference between Judaism and Christianity is the Person Jesus Christ. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Jews either don’t believe that Jesus Christ was the coming messiah, or that such a sacrifice wasn’t necessary—affirming that mankind can be possibly good. Only Christianity states such a unique message that there is not one ounce of goodness in man and that they need a Savior as their only hope—Jesus Christ.


Lolcat—As for the lolcat Bible “translation”, it seems like my opponent is biased in his investigation of the Bible. Obviously, the word “cheeseburger” is not in the Bible. The truth of the Bible is there for anyone who is willing to fairly investigate it.


Contradiction—After addressing his claim to a supposed contradiction in the Bible, he says that court and spiritual judging were the same back then. That simply doesn’t make any sense. The court judging means that you are sentencing somebody to jail; spiritual judging is believing that a certain thing is wrong; they’re obviously different. To say that the definitions were different back then would be like saying that a circle and a square were defined differently; it doesn’t make any sense.


Bible change—When I said that the Bible hasn’t changed, he says that that is just an assertion; and that “As new material is discovered, modern bibles are being constantly revised.” Theres only one Bible. God is the one who made the canon. Here is how the canon was made:

The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible. Compared to the New Testament, there was much less controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures. For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; Deuteronomy 25:4; Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative. The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired. It has not changed since God completed it. The reason there are so many different translations is because it’s difficult to translate the hebrew, aramaic, and greek to english word for word. Some people think, for example, that this one greek word can be best expressed by these 3 english words; some say by just this one english word. That’s where the many translations come from. Needless to say, the original hebrew, aramaic, and greek Bible did not have the word “cheeseburger” in it, which again shows the bias that my opponent has in using the lolcat translation.


He asked “Why isn’t there some more ultimate standard than God?” and “How can it even be proven that there is a very ultimate absolute standard for logic?” These have ultimately been answered by first paragraphs of this post.


He said “Numerous bits of evidence indicate that nothing worthy of mention happened 4,000 years ago.” He says that there is evidence, but then doesn’t say it. He said that it is absurd that a global flood happened; yet there is no evidence of erosion of the pyramids. Thats because the pyramids were built after the flood. In the Bible, it states that as a result of the flood, mountains sank down and valleys rose up. If the global flood had so much power that it tore apart mountains, made new mountains from valleys, broke up the continents, made new continents, made plate tectonics, and tilted the earth’s axis, then it probably had enough power to take down a couple of puny triangles. Yet, the pyramids are still here, which means that they must have been built after the flood happened. My opponent said “How exactly is this the simplest explanation that pro so searches for…” I don’t choose it because it’s simple (and I don’t think it’s simple), I choose it because the Bible says the flood happened. He also asked “Why did God supposedly create so much evidence with appearance of age that he didn’t create the whole universe 6000 or so years ago?” The earth looks young, not old. It looks old to my opponent because of his worldview of evolution (I'm assuming he believes it; if I'm wrong, please say so. I have no intention of misrepresenting his position); if he believes in evolution, then everything he sees is going to fit within that worldview. The universe looks young to me because of my biblical, young-earth creationist worldview. The evolution vs creation and age-of-the-earth debate is for another day. Those topics are too wide to be discussed in this debate. Right now, let’s just focus on Biblical inerrancy; and deal with the age of the earth/evolution vs creation issue later for a different debate.


He said that I used an appeal to authority when I mentioned the scientists. It wasn’t an appeal to authority; I was simply rebutting a potentially future argument because I’ve heard it before. Some people say that if somebody believes the Bible, then they cannot be a scientist; so I was just refuting that argument by saying that there are some scientists who indeed believed the Bible. I assumed my opponent would make it because I’ve heard so many times before by other people. It’s not a straw-man because I never said that my opponent made the argument.


He says that the Bible must be a fallible standard because many people come to the wrong conclusions about it and interpret it differently, such as some Christians believe homosexuality is okay. But this does not follow. First of all, the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is wrong (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Second of all, there may be many interpretations but only one can be true. Just because fallible man interprets an infallible Word of God in different ways, that doesn’t mean that the Word of God is fallible; it means that man can be fallible.


Concerning absolute morality, he says that if somebody said “killing children is fun”, then my opponent would not think of it as a big deal. (he said "I would say 'well that's your opinion" to them too) Shortly after that sentence though, my opponent said “There might be a problem with them actually acting on that morality.” But why? If a moral relativist believes that his moral view be no better than the next person, why would he have a problem with him acting on that morality, if he believes that his own morality is no more better or reasonable than the other person? It is inconsistent and illogical.


He said “If my opponent says I cannot speak for them, then he needs to provide a counter-narrative that explains to me why such a person almost kill my brother…” It’s because he wants to kill him. I’m not sure why he wants to kill him, but he needs to be sent to jail/put to death; not a mental institution. The “insanity defense” shouldn’t exist. Murderers are murderers; and should be treated as such. It’s my personal conviction that all murderers and rapists should be put to death; that includes mentally insane people who try to kill, and people who have an abortion.


He said “since pro is a biblical literalist—where exactly is it (morality) written on the heart?” He put up a straw man argument and a misrepresentation of my position so that he could take it down easier. I never claimed to be a “literalist”. However, you read the Bible at face-value. Let it speak to you, like any other book. Since Genesis is written in the historical narrative, we should interpret it as history; and history is always literal, not figurative. If you read a portion of the Bible that is poetry (such as Psalms), you interpret it as poetry. As a general rule, you interpret the Bible literally unless it just doesn’t make sense. The word “heart” can also mean “mind”. When the Bible says that God inscribed His morality on every persons’ heart (Hebrews 10:16; Romans 1:19), it would make sense to interpret “heart” as the mind.


All of these counters and rebuttals are not needed though, because ADMIN has already rebutted himself because he is assuming biblical principles (laws of logic) in order to argue against the Bible (as I have explained before at the beginning of this post). So I rest my case.


Now waiting for ADMIN’s arguments and counters.


Return To Top | Posted:
2015-04-07 20:34:26
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
Once again I thank pro for this interesting debate.
I'm going to start by getting to all the arguments I couldn't get to last round due to time pressure. Then I'll explore my opponent's R3 rebuttals.

Scientific Accuracy
The Earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).
Actual passage: "Ceiling Cat sitz abuv teh Urfs, watchez teh peepz dat luk liek mices, but he haz not eated dem. Teh skiez r liek curtinz for Him to climbz."
Some bible translations have "the circle of the Earth", but even that's disputed. A circle is not a sphere, it's a disc. The ancient Hebrews saw the world like this:

So, as you can see, the idea of God looking down on the circle of the Earth is hardly surprising, but still this is deeply flawed scientifically. And certainly not the earth as a sphere. As you can see from the lolcat translation, the point of the passage is not to communicate any scientific idea at all. It's just flowery language on Isaiah's part (he was rather prone to that). When seen in context, Isaiah abundantly supports a flat earth. Regardless, as I said, more advanced cultures already knew this, such as Necho II, the Egyptian king who hired a Phoenician fleet to circumnavigate Africa, and they discovered that in the south the sun rose to their right, proving a spherical Earth (even though many, such as Herodotus, didn't believe it).

The Earth is supported by nothing (Job 26:7).
Actual passage: "He putted teh ceiling abuv us to protect us frum rainz, and he holdz teh flor up abuv Basement Cat."
Once again, one can easily see how this idea can come from the ancient Hebrew view. In context the NIV says this: "Naked is Sheol before Him, And Abaddon has no covering. He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing. He wraps up the waters in His clouds, And the cloud does not burst under them". So as you can see, Job thought EVERYTHING was pretty much supported by nothing BUT GOD - God is hanging the earth etc. In any event it's scientifically nonsense. Among other flaws, Sheol and Abaddon do not exist and never have. So the idea that this is a clear passage showing a scientific fact is crazy.

The stars cannot be counted (Genesis 15:5).
Actual passage: "He takes Abram outside and is liek "look at teh starz and hevenz, if yous can count them, so is ur kittehs""
The passage has God taunting somebody to count the number of visible stars in the sky. In fact this number HAS BEEN COUNTED, basically proving God wrong. There's only 9096 in both hemispheres combined so it's not even that much of a challenge really (source).

The universe is expanding (Isaiah 40:22).
This is the same as the earth is a sphere passage we investigated before. How exactly this is supposed to prove that the universe is expanding is beyond me.

There are valleys in the oceans (2 Samuel 22:16).
The word for valleys is ambiguous and usually means "channels". The lolcat bible goes for an indirect translation, while the NIV has "The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils" (doesn't this prove that God breathes? Man anthropomorphism must have been hot back then). That the ground continues at the bottom of the sea can be very easily inferred from:
  1. Fishing nets sinking to different depths
  2. Tides exposing parts of the sea
  3. Natural disasters exposing parts of the sea
  4. Evidence of land being former sea (such as sea shells at high altitudes - sea shells being an early form of trade currency, this was important, and led to the also-mistaken "great flood" hypothesis held by so many cultures)
  5. The structure of rocky coastlines inferring ridges on the seabed
That's at least 5 reasons I can just quickly think of at the top of my head, without actually needing to dive down there and check. It's not a divine scientific revelation. At best it's just an accurate fact that should have been already known at the time.

There are mountains in the oceans (Jonah 2:6).
Actual passage: "I sinkd down rite 2 mountans roots, I thinkng I iz trappd beneth earth 4ever, oh noes!: but you rescuse me aliv from teh hole, Ceiling Cat."
As you can see the passage refers to the roots of mountains (NIV and KJV both agree it does not reference the mountains directly but only their roots). It does not say those mountains are underwater. While many above-water mountains do indeed have underwater roots, this is simply an expansion of the Hebrew conception of the universe I explored earlier. Again, not an amazing revelation.

There are springs and fountains in the oceans (Genesis 7:11; Genesis 8:2; Proverbs 8:28; Job 38:16).
Genesis 7:11 refers to springs of the "Great Deep", which you may recall has a special meaning to the Hebrews. It does not say that those springs were IN the great deep. A geyser erupting, for example, would easily satisfy this passage.
Genesis 8:2 refers to exactly the same thing with exactly the same words. While the chapter 7 passage refers to their opening, chapter 8 refers to their closing.
The proverbs passage is weird to say the least. The lolcat bible has "I SAWED TEH CEILING CAT PUT TEH LEFT OVUR SHEEPS UP IN TEH SKAIZ AN DEN HE MAIKS DE WATERS DAT SHUUTZ UP IN DE SKAIZ AND MAIKS EVURYFING ALL WET - HE CALL DEM FOWNTANZ", again not refering to undersea fountains, just the existence of springs generally. The NIV has it similar, referring to only "fountains of the deep", not saying where those fountains are located. The Job passage suffers from the same problem, referring to "springs of the sea" not "springs in the sea".

There are ocean currents (Psalm 8:8).
This was known well before biblical times. People invented sailing much earlier too, so knowledge of wind, tide and currents was important. Sailing existed before 10,000BC, which is older than my opponent believes the planet is.

The water cycle exists (Job 26:8; Job 36:27-28; Ecclesiastes 1:6-7).
... in other words, my opponent is literally resorting to the existence of rain in the bible to attempt to prove that the bible is inerrant. Do I seriously need to rebut this?

Air has weight (Job 28:25).
Indeed. You can test this by standing outside on a windy day and feeling the weight brush past you. Literally, this is usually translated as "the force of the wind", so my opponent is literally so amazed that the bible knows about wind and rain that he thinks the bible is probably inerrant. What's next, does the bible know about snow too?

Each snowflake has a different yet beautifully symmetrical pattern (Job 38:22).
Well there you go. Seems like the bible did accurately know that different kinds of weather exist. This proves that the writers of the bible went outside sometimes. It does not prove biblical inerrancy.

There are air currents and streams (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
Actually, all this passage says is that the wind blows in different directions. Mind boggling fact, right? I seriously encourage readers to check these passages my opponent is providing. Here's this passage in full: "Teh wind blowz souf n norf, rownd n rownd, alwayz teh sayme."

The remainder of the passages I have sufficiently rebutted in the previous round.

Prophecy
I've got a prophecy right now. I predict five new major empires will rise on 5 different continents at some point in the future.

Psychics generally work by making extremely vague, un-testable statements. The ones that ring true are the ones you remember. Prophets operate on much the same principal. Isaiah foretold the destruction of Israel, for example. He was wrong about that for a very long time. The thing about that prophecy was, though, he never said when. Heck, Jesus said the world was ending "soon". He didn't say when "soon" was. Let's use the Jesus prophecy as an example of how this works. Micah didn't say the savior would come from Bethlehem. He said the savior would be from Bethlehem Ephrathah. The extra word is vital because the second refers to a clan, the first to a city. There is good archeological evidence that the city of Bethlehem wasn't even settled in the time of Micah. Jesus, as it happens, was NOT from Bethlehem Ephrathah (on either family tree), because the book of Chronicles makes it clear you need to be a descendant of Ephratah to qualify, which Jesus was not. It should also be noted that Micah wasn't even referring to a spiritual messiah but a great military leader. He continues: "And they [the person from Bethlehem Ephrathah] shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders." But of course in hindsight by glancing over these rather obvious facts, Micah DOES look like an accurate prophecy (Matthew tried very hard to find any prophecies that Jesus matched. Unfortunately this was one of the BETTER examples he came up with - he really did not have a knack for finding relevant prophecies to include).

This is in addition to every false prophecy in the bible. Oh, like that Micah one.

So it is with basically every other Jesus prophecy my opponent cared to mention.

Archeology
Just because there's a "House of David" doesn't mean David existed. Just like the existence of a church of Jesus does not prove Jesus existed, or me mentioning Ali Baba in this debate and then you reading an old copy of the 1001 nights does not together prove Ali Baba (or Sinbad or Aladdin) existed. There's other, better evidence for David, but regardless it's a far cry from evidence for biblical inerrancy.

I'm not here to deny that the bible has zero basis in fact. There are some things it got right. For the sake of this debate I'm happy to readily accept that there was some historical David, Jesus etc. That the bible was completely inerrant in talking about them is another question.

Indestructibility
While I can understand why people love the lolcat bible, there are many stories with at least equal longevity - the Iliad and the Odyssey, for example, are probably significantly older. The fact that the Bible managed this in spite of attacks only proves that the Bible is relatively attackable, not that it's inerrant.

Transform lives
This can be said of most religious texts. I can't honestly think of any religion that do not believe they have the power to transform lives.

Where does logic come from?
My opponent begins by repeating his argument for some time. I assume we already know this one. Laws of logic are true, bible says God exists who makes sense of logic, thus bible is infallible. Got it. Now my opponent still needs to prove that the laws of logic are true, that God exists, that there are no other possible explanations for logic, and that all that proves that the bible is correct about everything, not just that one thing. If you've been following my case for the last couple of rounds you will find in-depth rebuttals to these ideas.

The only reason I use logic, as I've said before, is because it works. If it stops working in future or somewhere else, so be it. I don't believe they necessarily will continue to hold. That's faith and not fact. Alternatively, I'm just as happy supporting a human-centric universe as a God-centric one. Of course, my opponent isn't trying to convince me here, but you. All I can say is that my opponent hasn't in any way provided evidence for his claims. Even if you are a modernist Christian, this logic for biblical infallibility simply cannot hold up as a logical explanation of your faith. Even if you believe that God is indeed the ultimate standard for all logic, that cannot logically mean the bible is infallible.

To respond to my opponent's question, I use logic in making this claim because it works. Not because I have full knowledge that it's absolutely true for all space and time, much less that I can demonstrate that. I don't know that it's true, other than that it reached an accurate conclusion, that being that based on the same logical principles my opponent has expounded, his argument makes no sense.

Is nature uniform?
I'm not sure why my opponent felt the need to restate every single one of his arguments this round. That's ok though, as per usual people can skim back to see my replies to most of this material.

As I've mentioned in the very first round, there are competing theories for this. Mathematics is the bigger philosophical question and one that's actively being resolved. That doesn't mean God is impossible as an explanation - the bible MIGHT be right ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE - but it also doesn't mean the bible IS right ON EVERY ISSUE. And indeed, the odds are stacked against the Bible, due to the sheer number of alternative possible explanations. At best this is simply an extension of the logical case, rather than a unique point at all. As I pointed out last round and pro ignored, pro's entire argument is predicated on the bible being infallible in the first place.

Is morality absolute?
It's easy to say raping and murdering children is wrong. But is it wrong when the murdering of children is happening in the context of abortion? Well, people can have reasonable debates and disagreements about that. And sure, I have no right to tell abortionists that their views are wrong. I'm happy to accept that. Murder in a time of war is another case study. Many thousands, if not millions, of children died after the US capture of Baghdad in the Iraq War. Was it wrong? Well, obviously not to the US army. Heck, even Abraham was perfectly willing to sacrifice his child to God. The point is, even if you truly believe the killing of children is always wrong, it's frankly conceited to tell everyone who has a reasonable alternative opinion that they're wrong. As I've shown in previous rounds, with morality, there's no real "right" answer.

As to the idea that society can't live consistently by such an amoral standard - look around you. The world is full of different opinions even on the topic of when it's acceptable to kill children, but still we all get along. Some of us have killed children before, and it's quite possible to get along with those people. That doesn't mean you can't take a moral stand or exception to somebody else's morality. It just means that your morality isn't validated by some higher power. All you've got is your own intuition and reasoning that you can use to help you determine likely moral outcomes. For example - somebody shooting you for no reason, while not necessarily God-sanctioned or forbidden, does have a cost on society in the way of third-party harms. So I can say to somebody random who holds a gun to my head "Look buddy, this won't do you any good, or me any good, or anyone else - your morality may be sick enough to give you the sense to kill me, but in this case my morality wins out because it better achieves the aims which your morality attempts to achieve."

Governments and criminal justice systems operate on this principle as well. Most western liberal democracies are based on a popular mandate. While once witch trials and treason trials were the mainstay of criminal justice, today it's more about drug or sex crime. And that's a reflection of our changing society and changing moral norms as well. Not everyone agrees with these standards, hence why laws can change. The recent movements to legalize softer drugs are a reflection of that. I, personally, have a moral objection to marijuana, tobacco etc. But most people disagree with me on that, so the criminal system reflects their views as opposed to mine.

I can't provide rational responses to what your heart may tell you. I can simply say that saying "in your heart you know I'm right!" is a poor argument when you're trying to convince somebody of something. I've made this point in detail earlier.

Additional Rebuttals
We are both presupposing the Bible
The trouble with this logic is that I've shown several times that the principals pro claims only Biblical logic can espouse - if that did indeed prove inerrancy somehow - are not principals my logic requires. I'm not presupposing that my logic will work forever, for example, just that it works right now. I don't have to presume Biblical truth for that. Nor do I have to assume the inerrancy of the entire Bible to presuppose a standard of logic such as a Christian God, itself a logically flawed claim.

Pi Miscalculation
My opponent guesses first that they could simply have rounded the value of pi to 3 (this is basically what both his explanations amount to). Sure, but a rounded figure is not perfectly accurate, and this is the point. Solomon's Basin is the better example, since that does render an exact value for pi only through calculation with a high degree of complexity (3.1395, as you can check the calculations of here). For its time, this was a good approximation. The Babylonians thought pi was closer to 3.125, though the Egyptians had it at 3.16 for almost a thousand years at that point. At the time the text was compiled, however, Archimedes had already computed a more accurate pi, and shortly after Ptolemy got it even closer. It's possible this can be explained away as an inaccuracy of measuring, but then, that still contradicts the idea of the bible being perfectly accurate about everything it says.

"when the earth is viewed from space; the earth always appears as a circle since it is round"
This is only true when the earth is viewed from space on a 2 dimensional plane, such as a photograph (and I might add, the original Hebrew and Greek texts are even more explicit about this if my opponent wants to challenge me on this). It's like saying that balloons are circles. Similarly the ancient Romans argued Homer knew the earth was a sphere (this was long after Aristotle proved it astronomically) because he said the masts of ships appeared on the horizon first. While he did say things like that, it's far more probable that he just saw some ship masts one time. Likewise with Isiah, he probably stood on some mountain, looked around at the disc-like horizon, and decided that the earth was a disc. No need to read anything more into that. So it's not a clear assertion of a scientific fact.

Weirdly enough, Matthew 4:8 is still committing the same mistake 800 years later. So I suppose at least the Bible is consistent in that respect.

It’s pretty clear that it gives an image of the earth floating in empty space.
That's a modern reading of it. It could also be floating amongst the waters by God's power. Either way it matters little, because as I've shown earlier, Jobs intention was to show a spiritual case as opposed to a physical one when you bother to read the passage in context. Unless my opponent also wants to assert God's power is holding up clouds now. What's actually holding our planet where it is in space isn't God, but this cool force called gravity. Somebody may have discovered that when an apple fell on their head a millenium or two after Job was around... that would have been an insightful thing to write in there, don't you think? But instead, "God does it" becomes the default biblical explanation once again. As I explained in the first round, society's past that.

so-called “racial characteristics” are only minor variations among people groups
Great. So the bible is right that we're all 99.8% similar genetically (not to mention non-inherited and extra-genetic differences). That still leaves the bible 0.2% wrong and errant. The fact is we are all different in small ways, science can prove it, and frankly I'm happier celebrating diversity and everyone's unique talents and backgrounds, rather than the Biblical view that everyone is exactly identical.

the cells cannot get that oxygen except through the blood—the transporter of oxygen
Yeah, but the blood cannot move without the heart. Does that mean that life is in the heart? The blood would have no oxygen without the lungs. Does that mean life is in the lungs? There are living things that have no blood, something not known to bible writers (although other writers had hypothesized microbiology, such as the Roman writer Pliny, it was still a controversial idea back in those times). The point is that the idea that blood alone is required for life has no scientific basis at all.

Principles of health and sanitation
Great, well then I suppose my opponent would care to share what these revolutionary principles which prove Biblical infallibility are, no? Here are some of them:
  • Bird sacrifices to cure leprosy (Leviticus 14:3-7)
  • Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:10)
  • "Holy" oil will cure all ills (James 5:14)
  • Sacrifice your personal hygiene to God (Romans 12:1)
  • Spiritual people never get sick (3 John 1:2)
  • Shovel your excrement as opposed to using toilets (Deuteronomy 23:12-13)
  • Eat whatever you feel like (Genesis 1:30)
And so on. I'd like my opponent to tell us what amazing laws of health and sanitation are found in the bible that are actually ahead of their time, rather than just idle religious talk.

Unity
This idea that Jesus created things in the beginning is connected with God, sure. But not the character of "Jesus" specifically, who doesn't feature at all until the New Testament. Only if you presuppose trinitarianism (which the Bible doesn't) can one reach that conclusion.

The Jewish scriptures span a greater period of time than the Christian ones. New authoritative and prophetic scriptures surfaced even into the Middle Ages. They too are connected by the same idea of God.

The Muslims have an even stronger claim. The amount of remarkable coincidences in word repetitions is basically unbeatable in any book ever written before or since. There are also all manner of remarkable little coincidences with the formulas that were only discovered more than a millenium after it was written. While an extremely unified book, that doesn't prove it is infallible, however. Just means that Muhammed was a really visionary poet. (source)

Scientology believes in the inherent goodness of man and teaches that it is despicable and utterly beneath contempt to tell a man he must repent or that he is evil.
That's funny, because the way I remember it, the narratives are the same. Much like in the garden of Eden where the people are corrupted into sinning, scientologists believe mankind has been corrupted over the years by various historical events to the point where man is now basically "aberrated", which is a scientology combo of lying and immoral. Of course this is all no thanks to the fact that scientology is basically a space opera version of Genesis, but heck, nobody cares for that cult in this debate anyway. The point is that just about anyone can peddle this message. Watch, I'll do it right now.

Mankind is basically evil.

There you go, I just did the amazing thing that pro basically believed showed that the bible was infallible.

Islam relies on the goodness of man to get into paradise
Yeah, but much like Christianity it relies on the help of God to achieve that. That's the whole point of Islam as "submission to the will of God", because the will of man is insufficient. Hence why Muslims believe everyone needs God's help. Hence why, you know, they kinda conquered much of the known world in the early years - not something they'd have bothered with if they were perfectly content in this regard.

Only Christianity states such a unique message that... they need a Savior as their only hope
If you substitute "savior" for "God" in that sentence, then yes, that is exactly what Jews believe. It also strikes me as a very arbitrary standard. I mean, Zoroastrians are fairly unique in immediately excommunicating all converts to their faith, and arguing that God only allows those of pure Zoroastrian blood their religious destiny. Fine, but I mean... that doesn't really make Zoroastrians infallible, right?

Obviously, the word “cheeseburger” is not in the Bible.
It says it right there. But let's be fair here. The point of a translation is to accurately convey the sense of a statement in another language. Does the lolcat Bible have an anti-Bible bias in its translation? No. It makes efforts to be accurate. "cheeseburger" in lolcat is a general term for a good or desirable thing. This is understandable and relevant in modern society because everyone likes cheeseburgers. It's also the sense in which the Bible authors clearly intended many passages to be read, for instance, through Jesus, we "can haz cheezburgers". Again, to further demonstrate this, I'm happy for my opponent or anyone else to cross-reference scriptural passages to any other major translations out there today, and in this round I've made an effort to do so. The original text of the bible also did not contain the word "Jesus" because the letter J wouldn't be invented for another millenium at least, but Jesus is still the name in our language of the central character, just as the same can be referred to as "Happy Cat" or "Jebuz" when speaking lolspeak. Similarly what we call "God" was often referred to in the original texts as "yhwh", and in the lolcat bible as "Ceiling Cat". It literally makes no difference, only improves the sense of the translation so we understand fully today what the authors meant back then (Ceiling Cat being a descriptive term, while YHWH being inherently virtually meaningless).

The court judging means that you are sentencing somebody to jail; spiritual judging is believing that a certain thing is wrong; they're obviously different.
This coming from the same person who a couple of paragraphs ago tried to convince you that all court systems are based on the same spiritual morality. He simply can't have it both ways. Although the two are separate, this is not the (incorrect) view that was common at the time the bible was written. Interesting that he focuses on this one contradiction and ignores the others.

by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture.
Oh, except... y'know... they kinda left out the Talmud from the Bible because it was written after Jesus, even though it was at that time universally considered part of Hebrew scripture.

The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
... and Revelations (several editions of it), and the gnostic texts, and wisdom literature. The point is, in the early church, there were legitimate differences of opinion. Certainly letters like 2 Peter have a huge shadow of doubt on them, especially with modern scholarship into their authenticity scrutinizing them and finding all sorts of inconsistencies with them.

He said “Numerous bits of evidence indicate that nothing worthy of mention happened 4,000 years ago.” He says that there is evidence, but then doesn’t say it.
Great, I'll say it now. The existence of starlight that apparently took over 4000 years to travel to here (which is to say, the vast majority of stars in the sky).

there is no evidence of erosion of the pyramids. Thats because the pyramids were built after the flood.
... or maybe the flood just didn't happen. I might add that the pyramids ARE heavily eroded, hence why their stones are misshapen, some have been disassembled, and why every single capstone is missing or beyond recognition.

The earth looks young, not old. It looks old to my opponent because of his worldview of evolution
Does it? When you look at an ancient, dormant volcano, (for example) does it appear to people really that the volcano has never actually erupted? And if so, why does it exist at all? Even if we ignore modern scientific understanding of how things work (a young expanding universe would literally be way hotter...), it's a pretty logical assumption. Of course God might have just put the volcano there for some reason that we don't know, but that's not how it appears immediately in general if you don't look at it trying to validate some religious identity. Changing sea levels, as I mentioned earlier, are another example of that which basically led to the explanation of Noah's flood. I do believe in evolution for the record, but I agree that going into that should not be necessary for this debate.

Rebutting arguments I never made
If you rebut an argument that I didn't make, that's the exact definition of a strawman, because you're replacing my argument with a different proposition. Source

Differing conclusions
If man can be fallible, how can my opponent be sure that what he thinks the bible "clearly says" is right? He can read the words as much as he wants, but he still agrees he might be wrong in interpreting them because he is fallible. As such he isn't able to even consistently define the bible's message.

why would he have a problem with him acting on that morality
I want to restate this point because it's important. Respecting different opinions does not mean you are not entitled to your own. I for one generally have compassion for innocent children, though I am ok with abortion. If somebody else wants to kill a child in war, I can object to that and try to convince them otherwise. But I can't do so on the basis of some divine prophecy telling me that this child will grow up to be awesome or something. Likewise the child might be the next Hitler and be terrible, maybe I'd be the villain in future for sparing that child's life. In a moral framework, decisions always have uncertain consequences.

It’s my personal conviction that all murderers and rapists should be put to death; that includes mentally insane people who try to kill, and people who have an abortion.
That's fine, but to impose your personal conviction on everyone (which of course you don't believe is merely a personal conviction) simply goes to show that others disagree with your views. People who get whacked in the head, have impaired brain function, and thus impaired judgment. It happens. To claim everyone has some inbuilt moral compass is to imply some sort of divine connection in the consciousness, that frankly isn't borne out in any reality.

I never claimed to be a “literalist”. However, you read the Bible at face-value. Let it speak to you, like any other book.
If I read "Harry Potter" or "The Lord of the Rings" at face-value, I would not suppose that Dumbledore is a genuine historical figure, or that Middle-Earth is an actual place. The fact is that my opponent has taken the bible near literally on every count, down to genealogical records that frankly make little sense anyway (the classic story of Cain getting his wife, for example). If my opponent is willing to take it to one extent, but not another, he needs to provide a clear standard for which parts of the Bible are not supposed to be read literally. Genesis is actually a good example - did Jacob literally climb a ladder to get to heaven and wrestle God (and soundly beat him, I might add)? Or is that a metaphor for something else? As for heart also meaning mind, I will direct people to the fact that both of these passages clearly separate heart and mind by using different words for each, not the same one.

With that, I turn the debate back to the pro side and thank him again.

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-04-14 04:23:09
| Speak Round
KrazyKrazy (PRO)

Thank you for continuing the debate; this is really fun.


Logic

First of all, ADMIN said in a previous round “A very important difference in our positions is that I do not concede that logic is necessarily true at all”. He reaffirms it in round 3 “If it stops working in future or somewhere else, so be it. I don’t believe they necessarily will continue to hold” and “I don’t know that it’s true…”. Basically, he is stating that either he doesn’t believe that logic is true, or he doesn’t know if it’s true. Then my question is: How do you know that the logic you used to make that claim is true? Or did you not use logic at all, so that it doesn’t apply? Those are the only two options. If you did use logic to make that conclusion that logic is not true, then how do you know that that logic that you just used to make that conclusion is true? If you don’t think it’s true, then you don’t have a reason to believe the claim that logic isn’t true. But if you didn’t use logic, how did you arrive to that conclusion that logic isn’t true?I’ve asked these same questions in the last round, but he hasn’t answered them. He said “To respond to my opponent’s question, I use logic in making this claim because it works”. He said that “It works”, but again, that isn’t the question. The question is why does it work and why does it exist in the first place. These questions haven’t been answered directly in the last round when I asked them. Every argument relies on logic. And if somebody doesn’t know if logic is true, then he doesn’t know if his arguments are true. If he doesn’t know if his arguments are true, then why should anybody else?


ADMIN said “Even if you believe that God is indeed the ultimate standard for all logic, that cannot logically mean the bible is infallible.” Rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God. It proves that the biblical God exists. And since He is always right and without error (1 John 3:20), that means that the Book that He wrote would necessitate to be without error.


As for the proof that rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God, here is a restatement of it. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction states that any contradiction is false; you cannot have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship in which the letter A represents any claim. But few people ask “Why is this law true” and “Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning?” The Christian can answer these questions. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. We know, in a finite and limited way, how God thinks because He has revealed some of His thoughts through His Word. God made us in His image (Genesis 1:27) and therefore we are to follow His example (Ephesians 5:1). The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks, and thus the way He expects us to think. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13), and all truth is in God (John 14:6; Colossians 2:3), therefore truth will not contradict itself. Since God is constantly upholding the universe by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the consistent Christian expects that no contradiction will ever occur in the universe. Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, His thoughts would necessarily be abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are no made of matter, they apply everywhere, and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are a prerequisite for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God. Laws of logic make sense in a Christian worldview. But other world views cannot account for them. For example, apart from the Bible, how could we know that contradictions are always false? We could only say that they have been false in our experience. But our experiences are very limited, and no one has experienced the future. So if someone asserted that he or she has finally discovered two contradictory claims that are both true, the non-Christian has no basis for dismissing such an assertion. Only in a biblical worldview can we know that contradictions cannot occur in reality; only the Christian has a basis for the law of non-contradiction, or laws of logic in general. This is why the Bible is infallible.


But since ADMIN said he didn’t know if logic is true, that just refuted his side. Because at the heart of every debate and argument, logic lies there. Logic is a prerequisite for argumentation. But if somebody doesn’t know if logic is true, then they consequently don’t know if their arguments are true—so why should anybody else? But everybody argues a position as if they know for certain that it’s true; otherwise they wouldn’t argue if they weren’t so sure of themselves; aren’t sure if logic was true. To say that somebody doesn’t know if logic is true are contradicting themselves. However, contradictions wouldn’t be a problem to somebody who doesn’t know if logic is true anyway. Here’s why. Let’s say that somebody states that they don’t know if logic is true. Since they don’t know if logic is true, they also don’t know if contradictions are false—a form of anti-logic. Because if you don't’ know if logic is true or false, then you don’t know that anti-logic is true or false as a result. ADMIN said that there were contradictions in the Bible. But why is there a problem with contradictions for somebody who doesn’t know if they are true or false? I’m not saying there are contradictions in the Bible, but I’m just saying. If somebody doesn’t have a foundation for logic and doesn’t know if it’s true, they shouldn’t have a problem with contradictions.


On another note, ADMIN said in the last round “If it [logic] stops working in future or somewhere else, so be it.” He said that logic might stop working in the future. Then my question is: How do you know that logic didn’t stop working right before you finished typing your post? If it stopped working, he wouldn’t know about it since he couldn’t use reason to conclude that it stopped working because it stopped working.


ADMIN also asked in a previous round that I have to prove that the laws of logic don’t change, are immaterial, and universal.


Unchanging: If they could change, how do you know that they didn’t change right before you said that they could change, refuting your statement? As you can see, it’s illogical (no pun intended).


Immaterial: If they really are made of matter, put them in a jar and paint them red, I want to see what it looks like. But anyway, if they were really made of material, what makes one chemical reaction “true” and another chemical reaction “false”? They’re just chemicals, so logic cannot be made of matter or produced by the brain.


Universal: If they weren’t universal, then they wouldn’t extend beyond your skull and be applied to the outside world. But that happens every single day.



The fact is that the laws of logic are contingent unto God’s nature. The laws of logic are universal, unchanging, and immaterial; which are the characteristics of God as stated in the Bible (Jeremiah 23:24; Psalm 139:7-10; 1 Kings 8:27; Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17; John 4:23-24). And since He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and He knows everything (1 John 3:20), what He says in His Bible is true and infallible.


I want to say this again; it’s very crucial. ADMIN said that he doesn’t know if logic is true. Answer these questions please. In extreme detail.

How do you know that the logic you used to make that claim is true? Or did you not use logic at all, so that it doesn’t apply? Those are the only two options. If you did use logic to make that conclusion that logic is not true, then how do you know that that logic that you just used to make that conclusion is true? If you don’t think it’s true, then you don’t have a reason to believe the claim that logic isn’t true. But if you didn’t use logic, how did you arrive to that conclusion that logic isn’t true?



Uniformity of Nature

The same goes true for uniformity of nature, since logic is required to do science.



Absolute Morality

For the viewers who don’t know by now, relative morality is the philosophy that states that all moral positions are equally valid. The problem with moral relativism is that nobody can say that anything is wrong—not murder, not rape, nothing. ADMIN said “So I can say to somebody random who holds a gun to my head ‘Look buddy, this won’t do you any good…’”. But the word “good” assumes an absolute morality. Good for whom? Good for the terrorist? Or for the person who had the gun to his head? Apparently, it was good for the terrorist, because murdering the victim brought him joy. And if moral relativism was true, there wouldn’t be any problem with that; since according to the philosophy, everyone makes their own moral code. To him, murder was right.


ADMIN said “But most people disagree with me on that, so the criminal system reflects their views as opposed to mine.” It may be true that majority opinion affects the laws in some countries, but majority does not determine what’s right. Thats a logical fallacy.


He said “Respecting different opinions does not mean you are not entitled to your own.” So morality is nothing more than opinion and personal preference, such as somebody’s favorite color? If it was as insignificant as a favorite ice cream flavor, society wouldn’t throw people in jail for a disagreement such as that. Morality is not opinion.


He said “If somebody else wants to kill a child in war, I can object to that and try to convince them otherwise.” But why? If somebody believes in moral relativism—that all moral “opinions” are equal—why would he try to persuade somebody of a different opinion? Since all moral opinions are equally valid. It’s self-contradictory.






Since there hasn’t been a rational response for having a foundation for logic apart from the Bible, all of ADMIN’s arguments against the Bible concerning the subordinate proofs (unity, archeology, unique message, indestructibility, etc, etc.) are pointless since there is no foundation for logic on the opposing side. First, address the ultimate proof (logic), then move on to the subordinate proofs. However, I do want to address a misquote. Also, I’ll explain the scientific accuracies since it’s the only thing relevant to one of the ultimate proofs (uniformity of nature), which is the foundation for science.



Misquote/Straw man

ADMIN misquoted me last round with an ellipsis “there is no evidence of erosion of the pyramids. Thats because the pyramids were built after the flood.” There’s nothing wrong with using ellipsis, but I didn’t say there was not evidence of erosion. I said that ADMIN said that there wasn’t any erosion, before the part that he quoted.

In round 2, ADMIN said “It's absurd to claim that in the past 6000 years we had a global flood, but also that there are massive pyramids sitting around from before that time showing no evidence of fluvial erosion.” He said that the pyramids showed no evidence of erosion in a previous round (if I’m wrong in the interpretation, please say so); so I offered a possible explanation that the pyramids must have been built after the flood (if there really was no erosion, like he said). Then last round, he said that that cannot be because there is evidence of erosion (“the pyramids are heavily eroded”). Well which one is it? Is there erosion on the pyramids or not? I really don’t know; I’m just taking his word for it. But in round 2, he said that there was no erosion, therefore the flood didn’t happen. Then last round, he said that there is erosion so that disproves my explanation for the lack of erosion. I really don’t know if there was erosion or not, your confusing me. Please be more clear. Either way, it doesn’t disprove the global flood. Anyway, the flood is not the debate. The global flood digs deep into the creation v.s. evolution debate, which is too wide of a topic to be discussed here; and is off topic. The topic is biblical inerrancy, not creation v.s. evolution. Thats for a different debate. I’m talking about it only to rebut his arguments (that he started) against the flood.


Speaking of straw man arguments, ADMIN said “If you rebut an argument that I didn’t make, that’s the exact definition of a straw man, because you’re replacing my argument with a different proposition”. It’s not a straw man to rebut arguments your opponent didn’t make, as long as you explicitly state that your opponent didn’t make said argument, and therefore not misrepresent his position; and that’s what I’ve done continuously before rebutting some of the arguments that he didn’t make. It just saves time to rebut potential future arguments before they come about. It’s only a straw man if you misrepresent your opponent’s position; and I’ve never done that. Every time I introduced an argument that ADMIN did not make, I said before that he didn’t make the argument. So it could not possibly be a straw man. However, misquoting somebody is a straw man.



Scientific accuracy in respect with uniformity of nature


The Earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)

The verse is not disputed. That’s what it says in the Bible in it’s original hebrew language; it’s not disputed. ADMIN goes on to explain the ancient Hebrew conception of the universe. Some parts of the illustration picture that may have been unscientific. Some ancient Israelites may have very well believed that the sun, moon, and stars were part of the Earth’s atmosphere; but the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that. It says that the Earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). What the ancient hebrews’ beliefs were have nothing to do with what the Bible says. The Israelites disobeyed God multiple times (the Bible says it throughout the OT) and worshiped other gods; so what they believed about the universe around them is irrelevant and that doesn’t disprove what God says in His Bible. Yes, some hebrews took part in writing the Bible; but when people wrote it, God the Holy Spirit intervened in their minds and didn’t allow them to write anything that was wrong (2 Timothy 3:16). It is a red herring to state what the hebrews said outside of the Bible; but what the Bible says is the debate. The Bible says “the circle of the Earth”. What is the 3-dimensional version of a circle? A sphere. People who believed in a flat Earth don’t necessarily believe that the ground was a circle in shape. Basically almost all of the cultures of the world 3,000 years ago believed the Earth was flat; so when that verse of the Bible was written, it was ahead of it’s time. Although Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth around 330 BC, most pre-Socratic philosophers, including Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460-370 BC) believed in a flat earth. However, by the time of Christopher Columbus he, and most other educated people of their time, knew that the earth was round. In fact, the Greek mathematician Eratostenes accurately calculated the earth's circumference in the third century before Christ. Other statements in the Bible also indicate that God revealed this truth long ago. For example, David said that God has removed our transgression from us as far as the east is from the west (Ps 103:12). On a spherical surface, east and west are infinitely separated in the sense that one can travel indefinitely in either direction without ever attaining the other. However, Solomon described the wind as blowing in circuits, first towards the south and then turning toward the north. North and south are not infinitely separated as east and west, because a southward traveler on a spherical surface will be heading north after crossing the south pole. Also note that Job 26:10 clearly refers to the line of demarcation between day and night. No other interpretation is possible. Such a view of the curved horizon at sunrise or sunset can only be seen from extremely high altitudes reached only by military jets and spacecraft. These writers were given a view of the Earth as a sphere long before Eratosthenes determined that the earth was round in 240BC. He did this by by measuring shadows in Egyptian wells. Although there is a specific Hebrew word for "sphere," the word used in these passages ("khug") can mean both circle or sphere. It refers to the shape of an orange as it might be represented in a two-dimensional picture. Also, Jesus talked about things in which daytime and nighttime are occurring at the same time; only possible if the Earth is round.


The Earth is supported by nothing (Job 26:7)

This is particularly interesting, considering that the cosmology of other cultures at that time did not have the earth suspended in nothing, but rather upon pillars, or people, or animals. ADMIN stated “But instead, ‘God does it’ becomes the default biblical explanation once again. As I explained in the first round, society’s past that.” Like I have stated before, many people see ‘God does it’ as the reason to see how He did it; so it has furthered scientific advancement.


The stars cannot be counted (Genesis 15:5)

There are about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe. And those are just the ones we know about. We are always discovering more as our technology gets better. Nobody can count to a million in their lifetime. You can certainly count to 10 in 10 seconds, but when you start to count polysyllable numbers, it gets increasingly difficult to count them; so even if you started counting nonstop without sleep for the rest of your life, one could never count to a million, let alone the number of stars (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000; whatever that number is).


The universe is expanding (Isaiah 40:22)

ADMIN said “This is the same as the earth is a sphere passage we investigated before. How exactly this is supposed to prove that the universe is expanding is beyond me”. He didn’t even look at the whole verse. Here it is: “It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;” The verse says God “stretches out the heavens”, giving an image that the universe is expanding.


There are valleys in the seas (2 Samuel 22:16)

Only until the past few hundred years did people have the technology to discover that there are deep valleys in the oceans. But the Bible always knew. ADMIN said “That the ground continues at the bottom of the sea can be very easily inferred from…”. Of course ancient cultures know that the ocean depth ended somewhere, but that’s not the point of the passage. It talks about valleys beneath the normal depth level in the form of skinny channels; something they could never know at the time without divine revelation.


There are mountains in the oceans (Jonah 2:6)

Only in recent history has man discovered that there are mountains on the ocean floor. The tropical Revillagigedos Islands are the visible peaks of a underwater mountain chain-known as the Eastern Pacific Rise, that stretches all the way to Antarctica. The deepest part of Mariana's Trench, east of the Mariana Islands, has been measured at 35,798 feet below sea level. Mount Everest is only 29,035 feet high.


There are springs and fountains in the oceans (Genesis 7:11; Genesis 8:2; Proverbs 8:28; Job 38:16)

Hydrothermal vents are found in areas of the ocean floor that are spreading, such as at mid-ocean ridges, where tectonic plates are being pulled apart. Molten magma then rises from deep inside the Earth, superheating the cold ocean water around it. The average temperature of deep-ocean water is only 2°C (36°F). The water coming directly from a hydrothermal vent can reach up to 350°C (662°F) and is rich in dissolved chemicals. The hot spring water forms a plume above the vent, somewhat like smoke rising from a chimney into the air. The first underwater hot spring to be discovered was probably in 1977, when scientists discovered hot springs at a depth of 2.5 km, on the Galapagos Rift (spreading ridge) off the coast of Ecuador. Since then other hot springs have been found at a number of sites along the mid-oceanic ridges, many on the East Pacific Rise. Giant tube worms, huge clams, and mussels all thrive around the hot springs. ADMIN said that Genesis 7 refers to the opening of the fountains of the deep and Genesis 8 says closing. Thats because it’s talking about the global flood (most of the water for the global flood came from beneath the earth, so the deep opened; when God ended the flood, He closed the fountains of the deep); which again, is too broad for this debate right now so I’m not going to discuss it. Unless if ADMIN wants to rebut it; which is irrelevant to the debate of biblical inerrancy.


There are sea currents (Psalm 8:8)

ADMIN said that sailing existed before 10,000; but that date doesn’t exist because the Bible says the universe is about 6,000 years old. He said “…which is older than my opponent believes the planet is.”. It’s not about what I believe personally, it’s about what the Bible says. I never said that the Earth is 6,000 years old because I just think so; I said it’s 6,000 years old because the Bible says it. But anyway, enough about the age of the Earth and creation/evolution debate; it’s not part of the topic. When the Bible speaks of “the paths of the seas” it is more than likely that it is referring to ocean currents, which was discovered by man only in the 1850’s. The following history of the discovery of these “paths” has been excerpted from Answers in Genesis…

American naval officer and oceanographer Matthew Maury (1806-1873) who wrote the first textbook on modern oceanography called The Physical Geography of the Sea and Its Meteorology, was a Christian who had no doubts about the accuracy of the Bible. After an accident partially disabled him ending his active duty with the Navy, he was appointed superintendent of the US Naval Observatory in Washington. “In his Bible studies, the words of Psalm 8 stuck in his mind: ‘ ... whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas’. Maury determined that if God’s Word said there were ‘paths’ in the seas, then there must be paths. So he set out to find them. He studied old ships’ logs. From these he compiled charts of ocean-wind and sea currents. To study the speed and direction of the ocean currents Maury set adrift weighted bottles known as ‘drift bottles’. These floated slightly below the surface of the water, and thus were not affected by wind. Instructions were sealed in each bottle directing anyone who found one washed ashore to return it. From the location and date on which the bottles were found, Maury was able to develop his charts of the ocean currents—the ‘paths’ of the seas—which greatly aided the science of marine navigation”.


The water cycle exists (Job 26:8; Job 36:27-28; Ecclesiastes 1:6-7)

ADMIN said “…in other words, my opponent is literally resorting to the existence of rain in the bible to attempt to prove that the bible is inerrant.”. ADMIN either (1) doesn’t understand what the water cycle is or (2) knows what it is, but is using a straw man to misrepresent my argument. The hydraulic cycle is not just about the existence of rain. The Mississippi River, which is just one of thousands of rivers all over this planet, dumps over six million gallons of water per second into the Gulf of Mexico. The answer to where all that water goes lies in the hydrologic cycle, or circulation of the earth's water; something that was not fully accepted until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although the earliest literature indicating an understanding of this cycle was apparently around the third or fourth century BC.. Aristotle demonstrated only a vague understanding of this process, though he recognized that rain came from clouds, he incorrectly postulated that air turned into water and vice versa. Either way the Bible accurately portrays of this cycle 2500 years before it was widely accepted. It has only recently been learned that most clouds are formed by ocean evaporation, but again the Bible had it right centuries ago (Ecclesiastes 1:7). The complex nature of how water is supported in clouds despite being heavier than air is clearly implied when God was talking to Job (Job 37:16). ADMIN said “Do I seriously need to rebut this”? No; first, you need to rebut the ultimate proof (logic), which again and again, hasn’t been successfully done. Then, the subordinate proofs can be rebutted. Because unless ADMIN has a foundation for logic, all of his rebuttals are meaningless.


Air has weight (Job 28:25)

The verse is “When He imparted weight to the wind and meted out the waters by measure”. People in ancient times believed that wind had a force, but it did not necessarily have any kind of mass to it. The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth. ADMIN says “…so my opponent is literally so amazed that the bible knows about wind and rain that he thinks the bible is probably inerrant. What’s next, does the bible know about snow too?” He phrases it in an ad homonym like way and a straw man that makes me look dumb. I’m not amazed by the fact that the Bible acknowledges wind and rain. I am amazed, however by the fact that the Bible can talk about the water cycle and the weight of air millennia before they were acknowledged by the scientific community. Because this means that the writers can only know this information by direct divine revelation by the biblical God; which proves biblical inerrancy (see ultimate proof above).


Each snowflake has a different yet beautifully symmetrical pattern (Job 38:22)

In the book of Job (written some 3,500 years ago), God asks Job if he had entered into the “treasures of the snow”. With the invention of the microscope, man discovered that the ice molecules of each snowflake form in a wide variety of intricate shapes. In other words, each and every single snowflake has a unique and often beautifully symmetrical pattern. Quite a “treasure.”.


There are air currents and streams (Ecclesiastes 1:6)

Here is the passage, “The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit.”

The Bible describes the atmospheric circulation, and includes some principles of fluid dynamics. There are distinct circulation belts between the equator and each pole. The air flows in these three circulation belts or cells do not move in a straight north to south or south to north route. Instead, the air flows seem to move east to west or west to east. The verse doesn’t say that wind currents go straight north and south; but says that once it reaches north and south, it “whirls about continually”, until it goes back and “comes again on its circuit”, which is what happens with air currents. This effect was first identified by the French mathematician Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis (1792–1843) in 1835. ADMIN said “Actually, all this passage says is that the wind blows in different directions. Mind boggling fact, right?” I think so, since wind has certain streams and currents that it has to go through, and they weren’t discovered until the nineteenth century. ADMIN said “I seriously encourage readers to check these passages my opponent is providing”. I agree, everyone should look up the verses on the internet; since they’re not getting the real passage from the lolcat “translation”.


There is one human race (Genesis 3:20; Corinthians 15:45; Acts 17:26).

This was explained in the last round. ADMIN attempts to rebut this by saying “ Great. So the bible is right that we’re all 99.8% similar genetically…that still leaves the bible 0.2% wrong and errant.” How? Here was the 0.2% figure from last round that I said, “If one were to take any two people anywhere in the world, scientists have found that the basic genetic differences between these two people would typically be around 0.2 percent—even if they came from the same people group.” ADMIN said “…the Biblical view that everyone is exactly identical.” Where exactly does it say that people do not change behavior or appearance? Give a verse, and within it’s context.


The life of the creature is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11).

This was explained in the last round. However, ADMIN said “Yeah, but the blood cannot move without the heart. Does that mean that life is in the heart? The blood would have no oxygen without the lungs. Does that mean life is in the lungs” What gives the body “life” is whatever gives nutrients to every one of the cells. The heart and lungs cannot do that—they’re stationary; they cannot go to every single cell. But blood can; and it is the only bodily fluid that can. ADMIN said “There are living things that have no blood, something not known to bible writers…”. No, the definition of life is if the thing has blood, according to the Bible. That’s the reason plants are not alive. They are complex self-replicating multi-cellular organisms; but they’re not “alive” in the respect that you and I are. In the Bible, it says that before Adam sinned, there was no suffering nor death (Romans 5:12). It also says that before the flood, humans were herbivores—God didn’t allow people to eat animals until after the flood (Genesis 9:1-5). So when Adam and Eve and the animals ate the plants/fruit, they didn’t produce plant death, since it wasn’t alive to begin with.


There are principles of health and sanitation (Leviticus 12-14).

ADMIN said “I’d like my opponent to tell us what amazing laws of health and sanitation are found in the bible that are actually ahead of their time, rather than just idle religious talk.” I would be honored.

Note: The principles of health and sanitation in the Bible are primarily found in Leviticus 12-14 for the Israelites at the time, which is what I cited before in previous rounds. Most of the verses ADMIN used where not in there, but instead from other passages, effectively taking verses out of context, which I will show.

Eat whatever you feel like (Genesis 1:30)—This was before the Fall. For those who don’t know, the Fall is where Adam and Eve, the first humans, sinned for the first time. As a result, death and suffering entered the world; and everything that was bad, basically (Genesis 3). Since this was before the Fall, it really didn’t matter what Adam and Eve ate (except the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which God commanded against eating; and when they ate it, thats when the Fall happened, not because of the fruit itself, but because they disobeyed God). There would be no need for principles of health and sanitation because there was no such thing as “harm” or “sickness”. Concerning health and sanitation, referring to a Bible verse before the Fall happened is irrelevant—a red herring.

Spiritual people never get sick (3 John 1:2)—It doesn’t talk about spiritual people at all. Here is the verse, “Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul (3 John 1:2).” John was just praying that his fellow Christians didn’t get sick so that they may continue to minister at the time. Saying that John was saying “Spiritual people never get sick” is a bit of a stretch.

Sacrifice your personal hygiene to God (Romans 12:1)—It’s not talking about hygiene. Here is the verse, “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship (Romans 12:1).” Notice the word, “spiritual”. It goes on to say, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:2).” It says to give your mind and thoughts to God and make every thought accountable to Him and think no evil thoughts. What part of that talks about hygiene?

“Holy” oil will cure all ills (James 5:14)—Here is the verse, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord (James 5:14). The oil is not what cured the sick people at the time who came to the church, the passage says that it was the faithful prayer. The oil itself was not special; and the verse never said that it was “holy”. The prayer is what healed the sick, as explained in the next verse, “And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up (James 5:15).” The Bible clearly says that the prayer of a Christian has power, “The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit (James 5:16-18).” This isn’t to say that whatever the Christian prays, God does it, as if He is obligated to do so; only if it is within God’s will, He will do it. But the passage never said that the oil was “holy” or that there was something special about the oil. It was the prayer behind it, and God’s accepting of that prayer. Again, this verse has nothing to do with how you can prevent common diseases and how to take care of yourself in general, the verse itself and the context says that faithful prayers can do many things along it’s within God’s will. It has nothing to do with the oil itself.

Shovel your excrement as opposed to using toilets (Deuteronomy 23:12-13)—This is in Deuteronomy. Here is the verse, “You shall have a place outside the camp, and you shall go out to it. And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). In the context, it implies that it only applied to His people at the time—the Israelites. The cultures around the Israelites at the time didn’t shovel their excrement at all (nor used toilets, since they haven’t been invented). They just defecated around themselves and let their places stink. They literally “lived in their own filth”. God wanted some decency from His people when He said in the very next verse, “Because the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you (Deuteronomy 23:14). ADMIN said “…as opposed to using toilets.” First of all, toilets were not invented back then. Second of all, the Israelites were in a military camp; so even if they did invent toilets, they didn’t exactly have access to five-star facilities in the military. Third of all, shoveling the bodily waste does the same function that toilets do, so it wasn’t a problem. God was instructing His people to shovel their waste in the camp at the time—not us. This is clear, given the context.

Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:10)—The Bible as a whole has a lot to say about the consumption of blood. In Acts 10, the apostle Peter began to realize just how different this new Christianity was from Judaism. While praying on a rooftop, waiting for lunch, he had a vision. A sheet was lowered from heaven, containing many different types of animals. A voice encouraged him to eat. Peter balked, realizing that some of the animals in the sheet were forbidden under Jewish law. Three times the sheet lowered, and three times Peter refused. The vision had a dual purpose. The most obvious was that, under the New Covenant, the ceremonial rules about dietary restrictions had been lifted. Christians are to be set apart and recognized by their love (John 13:35), not by their lunches. The second, and deeper, meaning was that Christ’s salvation was open to Gentiles just as it was to Jews. Immediately after the vision, Peter received a visit by messengers from a (Gentile) centurion named Cornelius who was ready to accept Christ. Carnivorous Christians know and enjoy the message of Peter's vision. But the vision does not directly address the subject of eating blood, unless that’s included in the revocation of kosher law. The Bible’s first prohibition against consuming blood comes in Genesis 9:2-4, where God tells Noah, "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." This prohibition was most likely a ban on eating raw blood (i.e., uncooked meat). For the first time, animals were an allowable food source, and God was making sure that Noah did not eat them raw. A Jewish Targum comments on this verse: "But the flesh which is torn from a living beast at the time that its life is in it, or which is torn from a beast while it is slain, before all its breath is gone out, ye shall not eat.” Later, the prohibition of Genesis 9:4 is iterated in the Law of Moses. Leviticus 17:14 gives the reason behind command: “For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life.” It’s important to understand that New Testament believers in Christ have freedom from the Law, and we are to “stand firm” in that liberty (Galatians 5:1). We are not under the Law but under grace. “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink” (Colossians 2:16). So, eating a rare steak, blood sausage, blood pancakes, blood soup, or blood tofu may not be palatable to all Christians, but it is allowable. There is another passage to consider. In Acts 15, a question arose in the early church concerning what was necessary for salvation. Specifically, did a Gentile need to be circumcised in order to be saved (verse 1)? The issue came up in the church in Syrian Antioch, which had a mixture of Jewish and Gentile converts. To address this important issue, the leaders of the church met in Jerusalem for the very first church council. They concluded that, no, Gentiles did not need to follow Mosaic Law; circumcision is not part of salvation (verse 19). However, in verse 29, the leaders compose a letter with these instructions for the Gentiles in Antioch: “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.” At this point, we must keep the context foremost in our minds. These four commands from Jerusalem to Antioch all dealt with pagan practices associated with idolatry. Most, if not all, of the Gentile converts in Antioch were saved out of paganism. The church leaders were exhorting the new Gentile believers to make a clean break from their old lifestyles and not offend their Jewish brothers and sisters in the church. The instructions were not intended to guarantee salvation but to promote peace within the early church. Later, Paul dealt with the same issue. It is perfectly all right to eat meat offered to idols, he says. “Nothing is unclean in itself” (Romans 14:14). But if eating that meat causes a brother in Christ to violate his conscience, Paul “will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall” (1 Corinthians 8:13). This was the same concern the Jerusalem leaders had in Acts 15: if the Gentile believers ate meat with the blood in it, the Jewish believers might be tempted to violate their conscience and join them in the feast. One’s conscience is a sacred thing, and we dare not act against it (see 1 Corinthians 8:7-12 and Romans 14:5). In short, ordering your steak rare or well done is a matter of conscience and of taste. What enters the mouth does not make us unclean (see Matthew 15:17-18). Eating black pudding may not appeal to everyone, but it is not a sin. We live under grace. We have liberty in Christ. Others may have different convictions about food and drink, and in that case we voluntarily limit our freedom in order to better serve them and God. “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Romans 14:19).

Bird sacrifices to cure leprosy (Leviticus 14:3-7)—The verses talk about an extremely detailed process of how to cleanse lepers; part of that process was capturing two birds. Apparently, the cure worked. Of course, it won’t work today; but that’s not the point. The point of God instructing His people of how to cure lepers was to show His power at the time for the Israelites.



The chair now calls upon ADMIN to continue the debate.


Return To Top | Posted:
2015-04-20 00:26:05
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
I thank my opponent for their penultimate round.

Logic
My responses to his brief questions: Because the premise and conclusion work, no, and I do think it's true (just not that this logic must always necessary hold in perpetuity and throughout the universe).

Just because I don't prove why  it works does not mean I cannot demonstrate that it works. It's not me that's bringing the claim here, so I won't allow pro to push this onus on to me. I know that it's true because it yields a true conclusion (and this conclusion is testable as well, so we can actually verify that). On the other hand, if we are not rational, then our conclusion and testable position might be false, and that's plausible at least. In that case all our logic is irrational, even the logic I've just used to make this claim, and my opponent's logic to rebut it (for example, to find contradictions both ok and not ok would usually violate the law of the excluded middle, but since logic does not apply this is ok). To be clear: this is not my position in this debate, just pointing out another position that my opponent and I can't disprove (and don't have to, since mine works fine).

The same problem with "if logic stopped working" equally applies to pro. Further, logic might change but not stop working. If they did change right before I made that statement it would refute my statement, sure, but it would ALSO refute pro's unchanging position. Even if I couldn't prove it then, we can see that it wouldn't be true now. As such, the question of whether logic is unchanging is moot at best. For immaterial, true and false are just experiences. We know something is true by its logical connection to the material world, much like we know things about the material world through similar senses. This is like asking what makes one color "red" and another "blue". I could likewise say "the brain is just chemicals so it cannot make sense of color". Chemicals are powerful things. Of course they can make sense of logic. And finally, universal. First, the "outside your skull" thing cannot apply, in say, a brain in a vat scenario. And second even if this is not true, proving the same through all of time and space, rather than just the immediate time and immediate space outside your skull, is kinda hard. It's like the old Russell claim there's a teapot in orbit around Jupiter and asking people to disprove it.

Assuming pro is right though, I still maintain this does not prove biblical infallibility, since pro has not yet proven some infallible God wrote the Bible. He has only shown a possibly-fallible Bible claims to have been written by an infallible God.

Uniformity of Nature
Pro drops this as a unique point - he now premises it entirely on his logical case.

Absolute Morality
To be clear: relative morality is the view that moral positions are relatively valid, based on varying standards. So for example, one person can claim one moral view (we need to spend more money on education) and another can say another moral view (we need to spend more on housing instead) and there isn't an absolute "right" answer in this case.

The word good doesn't assume an absolute morality, but a shared relative one. So for example, say a person thinks it is good to shoot people in the head (and I might add, some people do - the conventional western notion of terrorists are a good example) and another doesn't. This is quite possible, because good doesn't require them to agree on what is good. But to apply "good" to both of them, they need to share a common morality, for example, not wanting to be hurt themselves. While the murder might have been right to the killer, the consequences of that murder might be more wrong. And further, I can still act on my relative morality regardless of what potential killers might think, for example by defending myself. The reason why I'd try to persuade somebody of a different moral opinion in moral relativism is because unlike in moral absolutism, people can change their mind about morals. And if that better fulfils my morally relative views, then that's good for me. There's nothing contradictory about it.

Pro claims that the majority does not determine truth. While I agree, what I was attempting to show was that PEOPLE DISAGREE about morals. This disproves absolute morality. There would be no majority or minority view in an absolute moral framework. Pro then claims, paradoxically, that society would not jail somebody because of their moral opinions/preferences. That can be contradicted by everyone jailed today. People are jailed in some countries based on moral opinions that pro doesn't even share.

Pro can't be bothered coming up with a unique response to my "subordinate proofs". As such he's willing to base even more of his entire case on his logical case and concede the rest.

Apparent Misquote
It's apparent pro doesn't understand the difference between erosion generally, which is visible on the pyramids, and fluvial erosion specifically, which is not. This is 100% of where my opponent's confusion comes from. I never said there wasn't any erosion, only not fluvial erosion. And as such, no misquote on my part.

Lolcat bible wrong!?
Once again, my opponent asserts this with no evidence. It's strange.

Scientific Accuracy
Earth as a Sphere
First, no. There is simply no way that any word in this passage can be translated as "sphere." Here my opponent is making stuff up. The root word chug does not mean a sphere.

Second, pro argues that a sphere is a 3-dimensional circle. Not only is this geometrically false (it's actually a cylinder), but it's adding to the verse. The verse uses the word for a two dimensional shape, clear as day. It's not like the ancient Hebrews hadn't yet discovered the z-axis or something.

Third, pro argues the verse was ahead of its time for recognizing the earth doesn't have corners (I guess). Which is funny, because Ecclesiastes does refer to the four corners of the earth. Not only did I disprove this in previous rounds, but also, it isn't 100% accurate even if it is ahead of its time (which is isn't, really).

On other verses - David's line does not imply an "infinite" separation, and I have no idea where pro got this idea from. It only implies an equal separation, which is part of why medieval maps always drew Jerusalem in the middle. Solomon, likewise, was not implying the winds go around the whole world, which would be factually incorrect anyway - winds blow around in circles in all directions, and this was his point, as the passage is a clear metaphor for life which can blow us around in all directions. The passage in Job can be seen by standing on any mountain, or inside a deep valley, or at the poles generally. You don't need to travel to space to see it. Even near the equator it can be strongly deduced on level ground, by observing the sky change at different rates like a gradient line. Oh and as for no other interpretation being possible? The word job used is not "line", it is "boundary". Much like how in Genesis God separated night and day with a similar boundary. Given Job's character of "stick to the scripture through thick and thin" this interpretation is most likely, and also most accurate language-wise. By the time of Jesus of course, pro agrees people had known for certain for 300+ years that the earth was round.

Supported by Nothing
Pro does not rebut my contention that the Bible does not explicitly state this. It says everything is supported by nothing, which is false.

Counting Stars
The passage is not questioning how many stars exist. It asks how many can be counted in the sky. And the answer to that is pretty clear.

Expanding Universe
It can be easy to see metaphors that are not there if you're looking for them. This is an example. The image is clearly of the sky being like a tent for us, stretched out by God. You just need to read the rest of the metaphor to see this. Tents are stretched to keep out the hostile elements outside. This is the view Isaiah took. Isaiah clearly did not refer to EVERYTHING expanding as the big bang theory suggests. And certainly nothing beyond the "tent" which we live in.

Valleys in Seas
Nowhere does this verse reference skinny channels such as trenches. It simply mentions that there are deeper and shallower parts to the sea, ie valleys. And I might add, even into the 1800s the depth of the sea was known with great certainty using only a lead weight and a long rope. This included knowledge of most of the world's major trench systems. The same technology was certainly available in the ancient world if they could be bothered investigating it.

Mountains in oceans
Again, the passage does not refer to mountains, only the roots of mountains.

Ocean Springs
Again, pro does not refute my counter-point, simply restates his point. Nowhere does it say these springs are underwater, only that their sources are underwater. This would be true regardless of whether the global flood happened or not - it is a simple exercise in close reading.

Sea Currents
The idea that the ancient world knew nothing about currents is false - the Agulhas Current, for example, was known to the Portugese who travelled to India, and noted that the waters themselves stopped them getting there. The Polynesians used currents to settle the distant pacific islands. The Phoenicians used currents to trade with distant lands. It was the ancient Greeks who first gave the phenomenon a name, and even deified it - Oceanus, the "great river" which flowed around all land (and its easy to see how currents can be compared to river flows).

Matthew Maury did not discover currents. What he did do for the first time is catalogue them. Previously no captain had bothered to trawl through every other captain's log book to see where the winds and currents were. This did enable him to do a lot of amazing work and draw charts and such. However, he did not discover these currents. These had already been known long before.

Water Cycle
Pro admits a full understanding of the cycle was known in the ancient world. The main reason it WASN'T fully accepted until rationalism took hold? Because "God did it" was the explanation. The Bible also states that God causes rains and such, so people saying the water cycle exists were labelled blasphemous. Ecclesiastes makes no claims regarding where clouds come from, and pro's idea of an "implication" of how stuff works is when God is basically saying to Job "LOL I did it!"

Air Weight
"People in ancient times believed that wind had a force, but it did not necessarily have any kind of mass to it."
I'd like pro to source this claim. As for the idea that air has mass, you can prove it easily by filling a balloon with air. If the balloon expands, it has mass.

The NIV for this verse has "force to the wind". The Lolcat bible again opts for a more meaningful and useful translation of the original words, "Him maed windz an watr (but no iz wut you tink becuz him no dat urths iznt litrbox)."

Snowflakes
Sure, snow is a treasure. Or a burden to some people. The point is, the fact that the bible knows about snow is not a miracle, nor does it prove biblical inerrancy. Nor is this passage even clear about what kind of treasure it is referring to.

Air currents
Similar to water currents, air currents were also known from sailing. Pro says it was Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis, a guy who NEVER wrote about air and instead focused almost all of his research on the mathematical relationship of energy transfer in water wheels, thereby coming up with a slightly improved definition of "force". The same calculations can be applied to winds, of course, but that wasn't what Coriolis did. The effect was known well before his time, and the calculations were applied well after his time. The Gulf Stream would be an obvious example, known to early European explorers of the new world. Trade winds, too, go back to the ancient world. The Phoenicians have been proven time and time again to have had advanced knowledge of every local wind and tide (example: here) even though they kept the exact details a closely guarded trade secret.

Genetic Similarity
People are not identical racially. The bible says we are. Pro claims we are 99% similar genetically, but this is different from identical. And that's why that 0.2% or whatever it may be is relevant. This is another "fact" the bible is actually wrong on. You know, with so many claims, it's almost surprising the bible didn't get more of them right - and remember, these are the BEST examples of the bible supposedly knowing things before its time.

Life in Blood
My opponent claims that "What gives the body “life” is whatever gives nutrients to every one of the cells." It's both subjective and wrong - cells are independently "alive". That's the point of a cell. A cell is the simplest type of living organism. Similar to how plants are alive.

Pro rejects this biological definition of life (based on observation and careful study) in favor of a biblical one (based on faith). That's changing the definition of words to prove the bible was right all along. Fine. Or you can just accept that the Bible is wrong according to its own words. It also shows once again how the bible is at odds with science.

Health & Sanitation Advice
I asked pro to show what health and sanitation advice in the Bible was so amazingly true and veritable that it must have been divine revelation. Pro could not respond to this. It's his point, and his burden to prove. Rather than rebutting all my examples of poor advice, I'd like him to show us the so-called "good" advice.

Pro claims several of my bits of advice are historical and were only correct in one context. That's a fine fantasy context, but it's not helpful to pro's case that the Bible only contains good health and sanitation advice. I do have a few specific responses to the following verses, however:

3 John 1:2
"you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul" (Pro's translation) - is an explicit statement that the soul's health is equivalent to your health. It could be rephrased as "healthy as your soul is healthy", a statement that to ensure wellness, they should minister to the soul. Regardless, John's prayer as pro termed it is not sound medical advice. Prayer has been proven repeatedly to not produce cures.

Romans 12:1
Presenting a body and mind to God includes hygienic parts. This was one of the key verses the church used to claim a monopoly on medical knowledge in the middle ages, since other cures were seen as being from the "world" and the church's cures from "God". The fact that this medical madness was seen as being of spiritual importance makes it worse.

James 5:14
Again, the best pro can do here is present prayer as a cure-all. Not provide evidence that this is some divinely revealed medical miracle like he should be.

Deuteronomy 23:12-13
No, shovelling waste does not have the same function as a toilet, especially if everyone does it in one place, as that place then becomes a breeding ground for disease.

Leviticus 14:3-7
The cure doesn't work. If it worked at the time, it still doesn't provide any useful health and sanitation rule, since the verse was part of the laws intended to govern the new state of Israel until God changed things again (and correct me if I'm wrong, but God never did revise what he thought would be a good cure for leprosy). Pretty clearly Ceiling Cat was just longing for a snack at the time.

The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-04-26 04:58:46
| Speak Round
KrazyKrazy (PRO)

Thank you ADMIN for another round.


Logic

This is the heart of the debate. Everybody needs to have a foundation for logic. To answer the question for why it’s true. Some people take a pragmatic position for why it’s true by saying that it works. But again, unfortunately, that isn’t the question. We all know that they work. They work because they’re true. The question is why they are true. Unfortunately, the opposing side has not explained why they are true. ADMIN said “I know that it’s true because it yields a true conclusion…” No, it yields a true conclusion because it works. But why does it work? That hasn’t been answered by the opposing side. He said “Just because I don’t prove why it works…” The Bible can answer why it works.


Logic is immaterial, unchanging, and universal. They are this way because they are a reflection of the way God thinks, who revealed some of His thoughts through His Word.


They are unchanging because if one believes that logic can change, then for all you know, logic has changed and contradictions are now valid. In that case one could have no problem with contradictions. This is an absurd proposition. If one wants to believe that; that’s fine. But then he just left logic and therefore his future arguments cannot hold.


They are universal because if you believe that logic is relative, then you don't. If logic does not apply universally, then it does not necessarily apply to this post, and you could have no problem with any contradictions. Again, if logic couldn’t be applied everywhere, then you couldn’t know that they at least apply outside of your cranium or somewhere else in space in general.


They are immaterial because the nature of matter changes. Logic cannot change, as explained earlier. Also, chemical reactions aren’t necessarily true or false. They just “are”. They’re just that—reactions. So if logic is made up by the electro-chemical reactions in the brain, we would have no reason to think that the law of non-contradiction (or any law of logic) is true, if it is simply a chemical reaction. Second, if laws of logic are chemical reactions, then they are not laws and they are not universal; they would not extend beyond my brain. In other words, we couldn’t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one’s brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical reactions in the brain, then they would differ somewhat form person to person, because everyone has different reactions in his or her brain.


The fact is that the laws of logic are contingent unto God’s nature. The laws of logic are universal, unchanging, and immaterial; which are the characteristics of God as stated in the Bible (Jeremiah 23:24; Psalm 139:7-10; 1 Kings 8:27; Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17; John 4:23-24). And since He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and He knows everything (1 John 3:20), what He says in His Bible is true and infallible.


ADMIN said “It’s not me that’s bringing the claim here, so I won’t allow pro to push this onus on to me”. He’s basically saying that he doesn’t have to explain why logic is true. But everybody needs a reason to say that something is true. If one says that something is true, he needs to have a reason for saying so. Saying why logic is true is a high onus, but it ultimately needs to be answered by every human being; because nobody is allowed to be arbitrary. The fact that it’s a high onus is the reason why it can only be explained by an infallible, all-true God who wrote an infallible, all-true Bible.


Only the Bible can give an account for why these laws are unchanging, immaterial, and universal. So the Bible is true (infallible) because if it weren’t true, then we couldn’t prove that anything is true (because there wasn’t a foundation for logic). That is the proof of Biblical infallibility.



In closing

Originally, the uniformity of nature and absolute morality were part of the ultimate proof, but they still rely on the foundation for logic. I still argued them last round(s) for the fun of it. Time runs forwards; it’s true, even if people deny it. Relative morality cannot hold up to it’s own standard (If absolute morality isn’t true, is it absolutely true that morality is relative?)


It seems like the opposing side doesn’t quite understand the argument. I listed the subordinate proofs (such as scientific accuracy, indestructibility, etc, etc, etc…) thinking that the opposing side would give an account for how we can have a foundation for logic without the Bible first. But since so far, that has not happened. If he wants to rebut the subordinate proofs, thats fine. But that’s missing the point. A foundation for the unchanging, universal, immaterial laws of logic is necessary before future argumentation.


Return To Top | Posted:
2015-04-28 06:54:24
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
I, too, thank my opponent for an entertaining debate.

There was once a time in this debate where pro contested many issues. Now, although he claims not to concede the remainder of his points, he certainly isn't contesting them any further.

I'm not going to let that slide. Pro tried to demonstrate that absolute morality proved biblical inerrancy. He tried to show that only the absolute literal truth of the bible can account for the uniformity of nature. These are unique arguments that pro made, but never really developed throughout the five rounds of his case - in the final round, he omits them altogether. I've developed a wide variety of rebuttals to these claims, and these should not be dismissed simply because pro has largely dismissed his own arguments. Indeed, I consider them representative of why I've won this debate.

It's about more than this, however. If you refer back to round one, you'll note that I made a substantive case of my own. Pro has more or less failed to contest my key points. I've counted 2 short paragraphs of genuine rebuttal (as opposed to mere attempts to distract with his arguments) in his arguments throughout the entire debate - all the rest has been a defence of his case. By failing to address mine properly, he has basically conceded all arguments presented in this debate for the alternative position.

This debate is about whether the Bible is literally inerrant. Some Christians think the bible may be true but not necessarily all literally true - that passages from the book of Psalms are actually just songs, not proper descriptions of fact, for example. This is not the position pro has defended in the debate. Pro has chosen to defend the position that God has not put one full stop in the Bible in the wrong place. That's the onus pro has set for himself. It's an extreme position. He had a lot to prove in this debate. And he's decided to do it all off the back of a one-argument wonder, in the end.

The existence of logic.

This leaves very little room to answer the whole question of Biblical inerrancy, particularly in a debate where pro has openly simply repeated arguments from earlier rounds instead of addressing my rebuttals to make up characters, and where he has ultimately failed to substantiate all these other points. As I've been showing throughout this debate, pro needs to show a lot of things here. First he needed to prove that logic exists. Then he needed to prove that only a biblical God can account for logic. Then he needed to prove that this necessitates an inerrant Bible.

Even if I were to concede the existence of a biblical God, this does not stack up as an argument. It's one thing to have a God who is immaterial, unchanging and universal. Even if I concede these attributes, this does not prove the earth is then also 6000ish years old, for example. It's quite possible for a biblical-type God to exist, but for the rest of the Bible to be untrue. Thus the argument is set up for failure from the outset.

This being said, I don't concede that a biblical God exists. Pro has multiple times attempted to make this debate about the existence or non-existence of a Christian God. That's not the topic. Pro's proof has been that only the existence of God accounts for logic, and that logic proves the existence of God. It's a circular argument and it's been frustrating for me to deal with. Nonetheless I have provided a large number of distinct rebuttals to this idea - for example, that there are also other features of the Biblical God that do not conform to this narrative.

Indeed he has had to be most defensive about logic itself and whether he had the definition right. His definition of logic as immaterial, unchanging and universal has been contestable at best. The response to the idea that logic may be changing has simply been to claim the absurdity of that position - getting you to imagine contradictions being alright within his post, even though this isn't what changeable logic entails. Nor does it mean leaving logic right now. His argument for logic being unchanging was exactly the same. And his argument for immateriality was that different brains cannot possibly think different about logic now, that's absurd right? I think the fact that we both believe in this debate that our logic is firmly solid, and yet have had such fundamental disagreements, only proves my point in this respect.

Rather than address my rebuttals head-on, pro has mostly opted for the softer approach of simply asking where does logic come from, if not from a Biblical God. Indeed he spent almost no time substantiating his claim, and most of the time rebutting selected competing theories (and not very well I might add, which is why he dropped that line earlier in the debate to focus more specifically on my counter-narrative, after I launched a series of rebuttals to his points).

I was happy to provide a narrative for why I can use logic - because it works. Even if the laws of logic were changing, for example, I could still use what works and what doesn't.

It was never my burden, however, to demonstrate a complete rationale for why it works. I provided a number of possibilities that scientists and philosophers are considering, and said it would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that God was the only explanation. For pro, this wasn't good enough. Pro has pressured me on this relentlessly - everyone needs a basis for everything they say. No they don't. I don't fully understand the inner mechanisms of my kettle but I can still boil some water in it. In the same way I can still use logic to make my points even if I don't know for sure which possibility is right. Pro on the other hand, since he was making a point attempting to demonstrate that God must exist because of logic, does have the burden to at least correctly define logic.

The logic argument is ultimately plainly full of missing causal links.

Pro has not substantiated his case. The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-05-03 23:52:08
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
KrazyKrazy
@Stag Yeah thats exactly what I did lol. I was bored. In reality, it should be 348, not 1348.
Posted 2015-05-21 07:06:47
BlackflagBlackflag
@krazy475 It works like that for almost every site. The code is designed so that everytime the page is ran, the counter will go up by one. That means that someone with nothing better to do could of refreshed this page 1000 times. Considering how unlikely that is...
Posted 2015-05-19 19:59:49
BlackflagBlackflag
There should be tied debates
Posted 2015-05-19 19:56:19
adminadmin
There are no ties :)
Posted 2015-05-19 11:06:37
RXR.RXR.
I would have voted a tie.
Posted 2015-05-19 11:05:30
adminadmin
Oh hey look, i iz a boi improved his vote. :D
Posted 2015-05-13 01:40:16
adminadmin
Fun fact: this was the 200th completed debate.
Posted 2015-05-07 21:40:43
KrazyKrazy
I'm not sure if your aware, but did you know that the view count can count the same computer more than once?
Posted 2015-04-20 00:38:13
KrazyKrazy
Sure thing.
Posted 2015-04-09 20:33:00
adminadmin
Thanks for waiting! :) Just came back and will have a round up really soon.
Posted 2015-04-08 01:54:08
KrazyKrazy
Yeah, it won't be much trouble. :)
Posted 2015-03-30 19:59:43
KrazyKrazy
Sure man, I don't mind.
Posted 2015-03-30 19:51:35
adminadmin
Hey @Krazy475 -

I'm going on a short trip over easter, between the 3rd and the 8th inclusive, and won't have internet access in that time. If I post my round tomorrow or something, would you be able to delay your posting of your next round a bit to still allow me time after the 8th to post? Would be great if you could.

Thanks so much!
Posted 2015-03-30 16:05:48
KrazyKrazy
Oh no, that's not necessary. But thanks for considering. I was just wondering.
Posted 2015-03-27 01:18:22
adminadmin
It's for each argument. Really sorry if that wasn't clear. Would you like me to take down your previous round to let you use the rest of your time?
Posted 2015-03-26 07:18:26
KrazyKrazy
Did you extend the deadline for the debate? Is the "time to post" for the entire debate for for each argument?
Posted 2015-03-26 06:33:35
KrazyKrazy
This is really fun lol. It's exhilarating.
Posted 2015-03-25 08:01:18
adminadmin
Let's go! :)
Posted 2015-03-17 03:56:49
KrazyKrazy
Oh okay. Lol.
Posted 2015-03-16 16:56:43
adminadmin
You have to wait for me to "accept" or "decline" your challenge.

Give me half a day or so, I'll accept, just need to tie up some loose ends first.
Posted 2015-03-16 09:58:45
KrazyKrazy
How do you start this thing?
Posted 2015-03-16 07:14:39
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2015-05-04 12:26:10
2001bhuJudge: 2001bhu
Win awarded to: Krazy
2015-05-04 14:28:52
RXR.Judge: RXR.
Win awarded to: admin
2015-05-04 17:08:45
ButterCatxJudge: ButterCatx    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: admin
2015-05-05 18:37:13
VoiceJudge: Voice
Win awarded to: admin
Reasoning:
Basically,this statement by Con is the ultimate summary for the whole debate: "There's a difference between the God of the Bible and the complete inerrancy of the Bible itself, since the Bible never claims to have been written by God correctly."

Pro's did not really argue the resolution until the second round, and then his arguments finally began to improve. While these points that were raised by Pro were good, Con effectively showed how how definitive.

One last point: Pro never was able to prove that the Bible is written by God Himself; as far as Pro got with that was just a bare assertion.

Feedback:



2 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as good
2 users rated this judgement as exceptional
6 comments on this judgement
adminadmin
Vote spam? Seriously?
Posted 2015-05-05 23:40:34
TejreticsTejretics
This vote should be removed for spamming the debate with Church of NAC-related, er, stuff.
Posted 2015-05-07 15:47:07
adminadmin
Edeb8 has never removed a vote before, but there's a strong case on this one haha
Posted 2015-05-07 20:56:21
BlackflagBlackflag
I fully support removing this judgement because it is spam. I also move to ban IZ I Bo
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
TejreticsTejretics
@Stag, banning seems an extreme measure for now (though if there's further spam, etc then I'll, er, abstain from vote). But I also support removal of this judgement.
Posted 2015-05-10 09:13:29
BlackflagBlackflag
He changed his judgement so I changed my score
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
2015-05-08 01:28:34
BlackflagJudge: Blackflag    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Krazy
2015-05-10 09:11:43
TejreticsJudge: Tejretics
Win awarded to: admin
2015-05-10 20:40:54
The RedneckJudge: The Redneck
Win awarded to: Krazy
Reasoning:
I agree with pro
3 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
0 comments on this judgement
2015-05-10 23:59:00
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: admin
Reasoning:
The reason for this CON win can be best summed up in this statement from CON in the opening to his Round 2 argument:

"Just because God (who is inerrant) exists, and the Bible claims to be written by God, it does not logically follow that the Bible is inerrant. If the Bible were errant, then the statement that it is written by God could also be false."

This debate took a long time for PRO to actually argue the resolution. The entire first round argument did not do anything of significance to address the issue of the Bible's inerrancy. I'm sorry PRO, but it didn't.
As a Bible believing christian myself, I understand the fact that to a Christian it is practically a given that the Bible is as perfect and infallible as God himself - however this is not a given reality. If it were, this resolution might well be considered a truism, certainly it would make arguing the existence of God a relevant strategy.

The fundemental problem in PRO's strategy, and the reason the majority of their points did not score, is because in THIS debate, PRO needed to argue the book's inerrancy. The Bible can't provide its own proof, so when the Bible says that God wrote it and God is perfect - it only equals the Bible is perfect if you can prove that the Bible is right from an outside source.

This brings me to the part where this debate started to get on track. When PRO opened up a dialogue on various scientific proofs brought by the Bible, this was along the right track. This should have happened in the first round.
Unfortunately, most of these proofs were exposed as less than definitive by CON. To really score, PRO needed ALL of these proofs to be knock out punches. CON convinced me that enough "interpretation" was required to make these proofs work, that they could hardly be considered as significant.

In addition to proving the Bible's inerrancy, PRO also needed to prove that the Bible was written by God - something that they didn't even address with more than a passing reference.
The passing reference would have been enough had the first part of the resolution been proven, but it wasn't so there we have it. Clear CON win here.

Feedback:
OK, lots to work on here.
CON: Let's get yours out of the way first. I felt that it was very clear to you that the resolution was not being directly addressed by PRO. I think your argument would have read better had you simply pointed this out, (which you did, several times) and then refused to address it again.
It would have made your subsequent rounds shorter, which would have made for easier reading, which would have made your line of reasoning easier to grasp.

I always appreciate your use of the lolcat bible. Meow.

PRO: This was a great debate from you and I hope that my judgement doesn't discourage you from doing more. I'd like to see more.
Firstly, you MUST address the resolution. Your opening round should set the definitions so that everybody is clear on what's being argued. Be aware that resolutions can be twisted all sorts of ways if this doesn't happen. To argue the res that YOu want to argue, you have to set these definitions in the first round.

In this debate I felt like you were compromised by pasting your essay in the first round. There was some relevant stuff in there for sure, but it was only relevant to small part of this debate.
I also think that your reasoning was fundementally flawed. I'm coming from your religious viewpoint and even I couldn't follow how the fact the laws of logic only exist because God exists. If I pre-accept that God exists, with all his biblically stated attributes, then I can see how the laws of logic COULD be circumstantial evidence for his existence... but to say that there is literally no other explanation is something your argument did not support.

Lastly, you need to be very careful about the claims you make when using the Bible as a scientific textbook. There is a big difference between the Bible account not contradicting scientific discovery and it pre-dating scientific discovery.
Objectively, CON was completely accurate when he called you on Circle vs Sphere. Christian Science type magazines make these giant leaps in interpretation all the time to sensationalise, and it really damages the actual message of the Bible.

In many debates, you would have gotten away with this, and you might have here as well, had you had more time to devote to these arguments instead of having to also defend the logic stuff - unfortunately for you, there was no way someone as savvy as CON was going to let you get away with half-assing that. The Pi argument was a classic example of this. Boil down the numbers and the cold hard truth is that the Bible was NOT mathematically accurate. It was mathematically approximate. Which is fine. It's not fair for you to take words written by an author trying to communicate one thing, and then hold them up as a bastion of something different. Had they known you were going to do that, they probably would have been at pains to be more specific!

Don't be discouraged, this was a good debate that went the distance - which not many do. But you need to work harder to stay on task next time.
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2015-05-11 16:25:01
HelloJudge: Hello
Win awarded to: admin

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 5 rounds
  • No length restrictions
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None