Instigator / Pro

The God of the Bible is the One True God


All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points

With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
I believe that the God of the Bible is the One True God, But first we will debate weather a theistic God even exists. This can be proved by the creation of the universe. I will use the Cosmological Argument

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

The Law of Causality helps us know that all things had to have a cause.
Of course we know that the universe had a beginning which is called the Big Bang. This, However, Is where the difference lies. The Evolutionist will say that the Big Bang came from nothing by chance and the Creationist says the universe came from nothing by God. The Big Bang, However, Is consistent with Scripture.

The next thing that proves a theistic God is the Teleological Argument.

1. Every design had a designer.
2. The universe has highly complex design.
3. Therefore, The universe had a Designer.

Even Richard Dawkins believes in design, But his design is without a designer, Bu blind natural processes. The Creationist, However, Sees purposeful design. From the way our Earth is to DNA to the difference between man and animal. Creationists also reject the spontaneous generation and macro evolution pandered by Evolutionists who use bait and switch tactics.

The last proof of a theistic God is the Moral Law or as the Founding Father's called it Nature's Law. We believe that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. And that Nature's Law is self-evident in all men. Moral Law is objective and is wrong in all parts of the Earth. So:

1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is a Moral Law.
3. Therefore, There is a Moral Law Giver.

The reason why murder is just as wrong in America as it is in Pakistan is because the Moral Law is written in our hearts as the book of Romans tells us in the Bible.

So, Since theism is the truth, Then, That leaves with only three religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Just like a team has a roster and must make a lot of cuts, So with theism, Only one of these three religions has the truth.
In order to see which one is correct we will look at miracles, The historicity of Jesus, The validity of the New Testament writers, Jesus' resurrection, Whether Jesus is God, What Jesus taught and the final Judgment.

It should be an interesting ride that might take more than just this debate stage.
I will also look into the comment section to answer questions or attacks on Christianity so feel free.

0.) Resolution

For the purposes of this debate, it is understood that pro has the burden of proof to show that the Christian God exists, and is broadly accurate as depicted by the bible, with no other Gods or religious texts being “true”. The burden here is due to Pro making the positive claim.

1.) Religions are invented by humans.

For Pros position to be correct, humans must have invented the monotheistic Gods of Zoroastrianism, Islam, pantheistic Gods of Hinduism, Sikhism, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek and Norse Gods. These include the writing of multiple religious texts such as the Koran, the Iliad, the Baghvad Gita, etc.

Christianity is itself an offshoot of Judaism, which itself is partially derived and influenced from Zoroastrianism - which is the source of concepts like the devil[1] - this is an invented religion according to the above.

It is also an accepted fact that the Bible itself was written, composed, edited, collated and translated by humans in some cases decades to hundreds of years after the events depicted.[2]

Given human propensity for making up religions: the fact we know humans wrote the book, without a compelling reason to believe otherwise - it seems the most likely explanation that Christianity is merely an invention of humans as are all the others.

2.) No direct evidence of God.

Since religion has existed, humans have invented telescopes, particle accelerators, harnessed the power of the sun and sequenced our own genetic code.

Yet, despite the advancements we have made, and despite the invention of innumerable fields of science and physics that involve probing the very nature of matter: we actually have less evidence of God than we did when humans were building pyramids.

We have no plausible or possible mechanism through God is able to act in able to manipulate the physical world, no possible location or evidence of a dimension in which he can exist, nor any direct evidence of him affecting anything.

Given our advancements, if the Christian God was real, and affected the world, we would expect to have some direct evidence of this.

Given (1), the lack of objective direct evidence for Gods existence when there should be, supports the idea of his non existence.

3.) Lack of direct evidence for the Bible

If the Bible was divinely inspired, or described supernatural events that actually occurred, one would expect there to be broad evidence to support it, and for biblical explanations to be the best one. For example:

A.) One would expect there the Bible to contain knowledge unavailable at the time. If the Bible contained maths, equations or physics beyond that which humans could have postulated at the time - this would be more compelling. There is no such knowledge in the Bible.

B.) One would expect to see evidence of events in the Bible - genetic bottlenecks in ALL species of animals dating to roughly the same period, [3] consistent geographic locations of animals with the idea of a flood diaspora - or evidence of a catastrophic global floods, rather than collated evidence of local flood (which happen all the time)

C.) We would see evidence for “Kinds”, or some objective method in DNA by which we can objectively tell animals do not share an ancestor. We don’t.[4]

D.) Being the word of an all powerful being, the Bible should be so compelling and believable, there would no need for any other religion. It should be convincing enough to refute all others, and rise above all human made books. However, only 2.4bn follow the bible - with high deconversion rates in the west and is being outpaced by the growth in Islam[5], this hardly seems like the result of book directly and intentional inspired by an omnipotent superbeing.

E.) The unambiguous word of God is unlikely to be so ambiguous that it would splinter into multi major denominations and thousands of different subs factions and sub types who believe subtly different things[6]. Yet, they are.

The lack of clear divine knowledge, and lack of apparent divine validity in the Bible lends substantial credibility to the idea that Christianity is simply made up by humans - which trivially explains all the e evidence presented thus far.

4.) Rebuttals:

4.1) The universe has a cause.

Most people, including myself, agree that the universe we see has a cause.

Pro does not explain, nor provide evidence  for why the most likely “cause” is that an omnipotent super being exists in an external dimension out of time and decided to create the universe.

Given that Quantum physics repeatedly violates the laws of causality - allowing particles to come from nothing[6], and allowing spontaneous events to happen without any apparent mechanical cause[7]; a cause along these lines seems much more reasonable and evidence based than does the the supernatural deity suggested by pro.

4.2) Design.

Pro asserts that because the universe is complex, it is required to be designed. 

Evolution - the widely accepted, evidence based explanation of the existence of life - as pro alludes to; provides a detailed, well evidenced explanation of how complexity can arise from less complex precursors through sequential descent with modification without a designer.[8]

Pro should provide an argument as to why the only possible explanation for why complexity can only arise through intention.

4.3) Moral laws.

Morality changes depending on culture and time. Slavery was viewed as acceptable at times in history, ritual suicide, ritual sacrifice of humans, genocide, rape and pillage of innocents during war were all considered valid at one point or another.[9][10][11]

This refutes the idea of an immutable moral standard that lives within all of us.

Worse, evolutionary principles happily explain the existence of morality as observed:

Morality is a set of learned social emotions that operates to constrain and manage our behaviour within a group. Such emotions help prevent behaviour detrimental to the group, and thus provides an evolutionary imperative for such morality.[12]

4.4) Historicity

It is possible to write a book today about the second coming of Jesus - who lived with his followers and taught moral law before being killed as a result of government intervention.

This book, about David Koresh[15], would be written close to the time of the events, would depict real people, would line up with contemporary news sources and accounts. Yet - such facts would not come close to proving the incredible claims that Koresh was Jesus.

Likewise, that Jesus may well have existed and was written into the Bible does not mean he is the son of God. 

It seems more likely, given the above, and the fact that the writers of the bible were human and had a reason to distort what they wrote to convince others, may have embellished and made fantastic the life of a compelling preacher of the time.

Worse for Pro - other religious texts - such as the illiad, Islam, and Judaism also have historical truths to them.[13][14]


In 1,2 and 3 I provide a detailed argument as to why Christianity is likely invented, as it lacks and distinguishing features that separates it from an invented religion.

Pro offers 3 faulty syllogisms that he does not justify as to why God exists.

Worse, pro offers only one single point to justify the existence of the Christian God. 

As a result, pro has not met his burden of proof, and it seems clearly more likely that  God is merely the invention of humans.


Round 2
Thank you for accepting this debate. I see we will be covering a lot. I don't believe that this will be resolved in just five tries because the details will be too long. I hope my counterpart will be willing to go on a part 2 or 3 if necessary. I will try to cover as much as possible of the above arguments, but if I don't get it all in on this round please forgive me. (I probably should have made it longer than 10,000 words.) I will be using the Bible, the book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and their 12 Points, Jason Lisle's book The Ultimate Proof of Creation, Answers in Genesis and for my sources.

The Cosmological Argument

Astronomers have proven, by their own methods, the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. Arthur Eddington said, “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.” Why couldn’t natural forces have produced the universe? Because these scientists know as well as anyone that natural forces—indeed all of nature—were created at the Big Bang. In other words, the Big Bang was the beginning point for the entire physical universe. Time, space, and matter came into existence at that point. There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Since a cause cannot come after its effect, natural forces cannot account for the Big Bang. Therefore, there must be something outside of nature to do the job. That’s exactly what the word supernatural means. Robert Wilson said, "Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.” George Smoot said, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”

What was the First Cause like?
1. self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (since the First Cause created time, space, and matter, the First Cause must be outside of time, space, and matter). In other words, he is without limits, or infinite;
2. unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing;
3. supremely intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision
4. personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe (an impersonal force has no ability to make choices).

This description points to God.
My question to Con is, If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing at all?

I will finish this by addressing Quantum Physics or Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. The attempt to cast doubt on the Law of Causality fails because it confuses causality and predictability. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does not prove that the movement of electrons is uncaused; it only describes our inability to predict their location and speed at any given time. The mere fact that we can’t predict something doesn’t mean that something has no cause. In fact, quantum theorists acknowledge that we might not be able to predict the simultaneous speed and location of electrons because our very attempts at observing them are the cause of their unpredictable movements! Like a beekeeper putting his head in a beehive, we must stir them up in order to observe them.

The Teleological Argument

The Universe
This argument was confirmed by great men such as Isaac Newton. However, William Paley made the argument famous. We all know the argument of one going through the woods and finds a watch. The person wouldn't say that the watch came about by natural processes, but would say that someone designed the watch. Scientists are finding out that the universe is even more precisely designed than the watch. The is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth. These highly precise and interdependent environmental conditions make up what is known as the “Anthropic Principle.” These are mounting evidences that have many scientists believing that the universe is extremely fine-tuned (designed) to support human life here on earth. Let us look at some of them:

1. On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. That precise figure is an anthropic constant that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen were 25 percent, fires would erupt spontaneously; if it were 15 percent, human beings would suffocate.
2. The degree of transparency of the atmosphere is an anthropic constant. If the atmosphere were less transparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the earth’s surface. If it were more transparent, we would be bombarded with far too much solar radiation down here.
3. One regards the gravitational interaction that the earth has with a moon. If the interaction were greater than it currently is, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If it were less, orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event, life on earth would be impossible.
4. If the CO2 level were higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop (we’d all burn up). If the level were lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis.
5. If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, and, therefore, neither would we.

The extent of the universe’s fine-tuning makes the Anthropic Principle perhaps the most powerful argument for the existence of God. It’s not that there are just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. No, there are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an intelligent Designer. 
Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants—122 in all—would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e., without divine design). Assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking: one chance in 10138—that’s one chance in one with 138 zeros after it!6 There are only 1070 atoms in the entire universe. In effect, there is zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life-supporting conditions we have, unless there is an intelligent Designer behind it all.
Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias, codiscoverer of the radiation afterglow, put it this way: “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”

I will stay with just these arguments. I wanted to get to the Teleological argument dealing with life and macroevolutio, but I don't believe I have enough space.

1.) Religons invented by humans.
2.) No direct Evidence for God.
3.) Lack of direct evidence for the bible.

Pro has completed dropped my entire positive case: I extend these across the board.

4.) Rebuttals

4.1.) The universe has a cause.

In the previous round - I explained why it’s more likely that the universe was not created. Pro has dropped this entire case, and I extend by rebuttals.

4.2) Design

I explained why it is reasonable to conclude life is not designed. Pro drops the entire case and I extend by rebuttals

4.3.) Moral law
4.4.) Historicity

Pro drops these points, and drops his case on these two. I extend

5.) Rebuttal - pro does not affirm the resolution.

Even if everything pro said in R2 was true, that God existed and the universe was designed: nothing he has stated thus far is indicative that the God that exists is the Christian God. Allah, Jawhweh, Buddha, Zeus, etc could equally be explantations; as would the universe being a programmed simulation created by a non-god entity.

As a result, pro has failed to affirm the resolution, and a vote for con is clearly warranted.

6.) Plagurism.

While pro suggests he is going to be using the book “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”, as a source, pro neglects to mention that almost every part of his entire Round 2 argument as posted is a copy and paste directly from that book:

Presenting other peoples arguments as his own, is dishonest, opens up this website to charges of copyright infringement, and is intellectually lazy on the part of pro.

As I accepted a debate against pro; rather than as an explicit debate against Normal L. Geisslers book - this round should be dismissed until pro is able to present his own specific and paraphrased version of the argument he wishes to present.

Round 3
"1.) Religions are invented by humans."

First I invite Con to give us a detailed account on how humans invented religion in stead of just arbitrarily mentioning as if the proof exists. Second Con should study Zoroastrianism a little more closely and he will find that it is not a monotheistic religion, but polytheistic for the evil personage in Zoroastrianism was also considered a deity. Once you have two deities you have a polytheistic religion Also Judaism predates Zoroastrianism, some scholars say by about 1,700 years and others 900 years.
Con, without proof again, says that the Bible "was written, composed, edited, collated and translated by humans in some cases decades to hundreds of years after the events depicted," using Wikipedia as a source. Every one knows by now that anyone can say anything on Wikipedia. Also where is the proof that it was not written by the authors at the time they said they wrote it?

"2.) No direct evidence of God."

There is plenty of evidence for God. Which is why I used the Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument and the Moral Law Argument. What you want is evidence that you can see. However, you believe in electrons which you cannot see.

"3.) Lack of direct evidence for the Bible"

"A.) One would expect there the Bible to contain knowledge unavailable at the time."
First of all the Bible is not a science textbook or a history textbook, but what it says about science and history is true. Also it does give a lot of "knowledge that was unavailable at the time." It talks about how the universe is expanding. It tell about how the life is in the blood. It says that one must wash themselves before performing surgeries. It talks about which animals are healthy to eat. It talks about dinosaurs. 

"B.) One would expect to see evidence of events in the Bible"
The first two points I don't know what you mean, but the biggest evidence for the Worldwide flood is the Grand Canyon. v

"C.) We would see evidence for “Kinds”"
There is plenty of observable evidence that kinds breed the same kinds. Dogs have always bred dogs and will continue breeding dogs. But dinosaurs did not stop breeding dinosaurs and start breeding chickens. There is no evidence for macroevolution.

"D.) Being the word of an all powerful being, the Bible should be so compelling and believable, there would no need for any other religion."
The Bible says that mas does not want to know the true God, but instead create their own man-made religion. Also we can see that the miracles in the Bible were not done anywhere else, further confirming that the God of the Bible is the only true God. As far as Christianity growing smaller, I repeat what I said earlier, people don't have a natural tendency to like God because they would feel responsible to someone.

"E.) The unambiguous word of God is unlikely to be so ambiguous that it would splinter into multi major denominations and thousands of different subs factions and sub types"
Yet, there is one important things that makes them the same that outweighs all the disagreements. That is the way to salvation through Jesus alone. I may not agree with a Methodist on some points, but what we have in come is we believe the same about what Jesus did on the cross. All our differences are not major points of disagreement.

"4.1) The universe has a cause."
I did not drop the case. Besides your mention of quantum physics, which I showed is really not scientific, you did not give me any other reason for "why it’s more likely that the universe was not created."

"4.2) Design"
All you did was wave evolution around. Well that is arbitrary. However, please give me an example why it wasn't designed. I stick by the evidence of the Anthropic Principle.

"4.3) Moral laws."
 "Evolutionary principles happily explain the existence of morality." According to evolution only material exists. Yet, material does not have morals. You also cannot feel, measure, hold or weigh morals. 

4.4) Historicity
Although the Bible is not a history textbook, the history it gives has already been proven true time and again by archaeology.

1.) Invented religions

If all other religions are false, and the product of imagination or humans, there is no reason to believe the same is not true of Christianity.

Pro claims I have provided no evidence of this, despite appearing to agree in 3dthat humans invent religions.

The resolution is that the God of the Bible is the one true God - if the resolution is true, all other religions are necessarily false. Pro is free to claim that other religions are also true and valid: but this proves the resolution false.God is not the “one true God”, if other religions are true too.

Pro challenges Wikipedia. It’s not clear what pro is challenging: is pro suggesting the entire article on the history of the Bible is fabricated? Is pro suggesting that the New Testament Gospel wasn’t written by matthew, Mark, Luke and John - or humans or at all? That the epistles of Paul weren’t written by Paul of Tarsus - or even a Human at all? That the council of Nicea didn’t collate the Bible? Or the KJV and NIV bibles were not human edited translations? Again: this appears to be a denial for denials sake. Which dates or times does Pro think it portrayed inaccurately?

Wikipedia is fairly accurate[1]: given the absence of any specific objections by pro, and that the alternative - that the Bible is not written by man - is an incredible claim that pro would need to substantiate, these objections should all be rejected.

Finally; as shown, Zoroastrianism heavily influenced Judaism. Which is the oldest of the two religions is largely irrelevant to whether one is able to influence the other, thus pros objection doesn’t refute the claim.

Zoroastrianism is necessarily a false religion as per the resolution - if it influenced, changed or modified Abrahamic religions its likely there is good reason to believe those religions are therefore false too.

2.) Direct evidence of God.

One does not prove owls exist by offering a deductive argument. One shows direct evidence - seeing an owl, owl feathers, an owls nest or owls poop.

No such measurable evidence for God exists, despite us being able to probe the content of atoms and measure the beginning of the universe.

If God really did exist, why would we not have detected his presence?

3.b) Global flood.

Pro asserts a relatively small geographic feature that occupies a small portion of a single country in North America is evidence of a widespread global cataclysm. As this is a bare assertion, with no justification it can be discarded.

A lack of genetic bottlenecks disprove such an event by showing species could not have been reduced to a handful of survivors. I extend.

3.c) Kinds.

Pro asserts dogs and birds are “created kinds” because they are not able to interbreed with others.

Two groups of organisms becoming incapable of interbreeding can arise naturally without needing to have been created [2], thus cannot be considered indicative of them having been created.

3.a/d/e) The Bible is not convincing / Splintering / unavailable knowledge

If the Bible was inspired directly by a superbeing, it could easily have been made exceptionally convincing, unambiguous, and containing detailed knowledge of creation that is accurate, and unavailable at the time - it could reference radiation, non geocentrism, or quantum effects, etc. It could have talked about Germs directly, rather than encouraging hand washing, or just explained what blood actually did rather than stating vaguely “life is in the blood”.

If the Bible was not inspired by God, it would just appear to be like all other religious texts; it would be ambiguous, only as convincing as any other, and party only to knowledge humans had at the time - like knowing you can bleed to death - or so vague it could be interpreted to mean something we discover later. 

Pro doesn’t challenge the human-ness of the Bible, pro simply offers a set of speculative excuses to explain why the Bible shows the hallmarks of not being inspired by a super being. A simpler explanation than all pro’s additional claims - is that it wasn’t inspired by a super being.

Pro does assert 4 vague scientific facts the bibles contains, and claims miracles have occurred; but is not specific, offers no justification or source for them, so I really have nothing to refute.

If pro can find no evidence or reason to elevate the Bible above a book written by humans, on what basis can he state the God it contains is True?

4.1.) Cosmological argument.

Pros argument is that due to the laws of causality the universe requires a cause, and implies that cause must be sufficient and timeless.

Firstly the laws of causality upon which this is based are demonstrably wrong.

Second, there is no need for the cause to be more powerful than simply “sufficient to produce the universe”, personal, or anything more than the laws of physics

On what basis can pro claim that speculative quantum effects similar to one’s we can already observe - are less likely than an omnipotent super being that transcends time and spaces and exists as a disembodied transcendental consciousness?

As pro has no direct evidence of God, and in the absence of any human knowing what is possible or not on a cosmic scale; any speculative solution that could cause the universe is just as plausible as the God pro is asserting.

Given that my example: quantum fluctuations, within a Multiverse - does not have a mind, superpowers, is similar to what we already know exists, could cause the universe - it is far more likely to be true than God given it require fewer assumptions.

4.2.) Life is Designed

Pro claims the life appears designed; I have offered a widely accepted, scientifically backed theory that provides a well evidenced explanation, process and mechanism for how life can superficially appear designed without a designer.

If pro wants to offer a detailed argument as to why Evolution should not be accepted as an explanation for life, he should do so. Simply dismissing evolution  without justification, is not valid.

4.3.) Moral Laws.

Pro asserts that morality can’t have evolved because it is immaterial. He provides no evidence or justification for this claim - thus can be rejected. I extend my original point that evolution explains the existence of morality without a law giver - refuting this argument.

Pro also drops my argument that humans do not have an innate moral standard. I extend this too.

4.4.) Historicity

Pro completely drops this point for a second time, and simply repeats his original argument; some aspects of the bible being accurate does not validate the supernatural claims; especially considering that other books also have historical validity, and that human writers could have written about events, but embellished.

5.) Does not affirm the resolution.

Pro drops this argument. I extend.

6.) Plagurism.

Pro drops this point. I extend.


Round 4
I am going to do what Con does, just through out sources and say I explained something and not explain anything for myself. Two can play at this game.
"1.) Invented religions"
I do not claim that all religions are true. There may be some that have truth claims, but that does not make them true. I am postulating that only the God of the Bible is true. 
Where religions come from.

"Finally; as shown, Zoroastrianism heavily influenced Judaism."

I am sorry, but I missed this. You have not shown how it influenced Judaism. If your proof is that it influenced Judaism by its concept of the devil I have to tell you that you must have not read my point above accurately. The devil is found in the book of Genesis which is 900 years older than the earliest date for Zoroastrianism. Therefore, Zoroastrianism borrowed from Judaism not the other way around. If you have more evidence, please share, but when I refute a claim, please don't just restate your claim. 

"2.) Direct evidence of God."

"3.b) Global flood."
1. Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents
2. Rapid burial of plants and animals
3. Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
4. Sediment transported long distances
5. Rapid or no erosion between strata
6. Many strata laid down in rapid succession

Genetic bottlenecks

"3.c) Kinds."
I like how you just say "groups of organisms can arise naturally without needing to have been created" without proof. No one has observed animals arising from pond scum. Besides this would violate the Law of biogenesis. Loui Pasture proved that abiogenesis is false.

"3.a/d/e) The Bible is not convincing / Splintering / unavailable knowledge"
I enjoy reading history, especially military history. What I have found is that when I pick up a book on, let us say, the Battle of Gettysburg, I find that the author does not go into detail of the political reasons why that battle was fought or the journey each general or soldier took throughout his life to get to that battle. Why? Because his point is to discus the object of his book, the battle. The same with the Bible. It is not a history book or a science book to go through the details. It is a book about salvation. That is the point of the book. It is God trying to restore His relationship with man. I find amusing that you assume that people knew back then that you could bleed to death, but need I remind you that George Washington died because they wanted to take out bad blood. Apparently doctors hadn't read the Bible carefully. Obviously, scientists at the time didn't realize that the life was in the blood.
The Bible is different from other religious books because it never defends its truth it only tells it. Also the Bible has many prophecies that have been fulfilled which no other religious book has. God says that He cannot lie, therefore, His Word doesn't have contradictions. Any religious writing that claims divine inspiration or authority equal to the Bible can’t be from God if it has any contradictions: contradictions with the Bible, contradictions within itself, or contradictions with reality. We know that Jesus' miracles occurred because none of His enemies ever refuted that He performed miracles. His enemies were never upset about His miracles (actuality they acknowledge that He performed them) they were upset that He said He was God.

"4.1.) Cosmological argument."
"Firstly the laws of causality upon which this is based are demonstrably wrong." I like how you offer no evidence. Wow! You really went multiverse? You say what I believe is weird, man, you must read sci-fi a lot.

"4.2.) Life is Designed"

"4.3.) Moral Laws."

"4.4.) Historicity"
Please let me know what parts of the Bible are not historical.

There I think I am done. I love the 20th century way of debating, you can be lazy and paste a bunch of articles and hope the other person reads them all. I would like old fachined debating where you don't use sources and just debate and present your evidence or positions instead of having your opponent go look for it. It gets me when Con says his arguments when all he did was put down wikipedia sources (talking about lazy).
7.) AIG/ are untrustworthy.

These websites contain “statements of faith”, [1][2] that effectively state that no contradictory evidence can possibly be true.

The conclusions of a website that almost explicitly states it would never draw any other possible conclusion, regardless of what the evidence and facts may state cannot possible be accepted as valid or trustworthy and should be rejected.

Voters should reject pros contextless links; presented as his argument, and focus solely on the arguments of his own he provides in text.

1.) Invented Religions

Pro has gone from challenging religions as invented, then to claiming he agrees they are untrue. This confirms my original claim.

Pro has not offered an additional argument: merely post 3 links to articles. 

1.a.) influence of Zoroastrianism:

The original link explains that heaven, hell, judgement day, Angels, demons, the conflict between good and evil with those who pick the side of God being rewarded with an afterlife are all likely derived from influences of Zoroastrianism - not just Satan as pro argues - these cover almost the entire philosophical narrative of Judaism and Christianity.

This is a false religion, created by humans - influencing and changing the core philosophy of the religion that produced Christianity - this clearly and strongly implies Christianity is false too.

1.b.) Genesis Predates Zoroastrianism.

Genesis is notionally as old as 900BC based on literary devices, but likely more likely dates to 500BCE[3]; and the oldest surviving manuscript is a few hundred years younger still.[4]

There is absolutely nothing about the debate that prevent Zoroastrianism (which as shown could be older) influencing early Judaism after the initial stories were being told orally, in a way that influenced subsequent iterations of Judaism into what it is now - as my source indicated.

3.b.) Evidence of a flood 

Pro makes a number of asserted statements about evidence for a global flood. Pro does not offer evidence that these things are actually true. Pro does not explain their context. Pro does not explain how they lead to the conclusion of a single global flood rather than the product of local floods, or local conditions.

As such, there is no argument for me to refute.

A global catastrophic flood that happened 6000 years ago should have clear and unambiguous evidence attributable only to a global wipeout. 

Genetic bottle necks (unchallenged by pro) is one such example; another would be modern mammals being mixed up in the sediment of dinosaurs (they all lived and died at the same time, after all); or sequencable  DNA in all fossils (Which you would expect if they all died 6000 years agi)[5]

Given that a global flood should definitely have to produce the examples above, and a series of local floods could potentially produce pros examples. The presence of the latter in the absence of the former refutes a global flood.

3.c) Kinds

In the last round I provided a source that showed organisms developing reproductive isolation - thus becoming new “kinds” as per pros definition.

Pro ignores this example and simply states I haven’t provided evidence (I did), and no one has ever seen it (they have).

Pro then goes on to refute his entire position by claiming evolution is invalid due to lack of direct evidence.

Ignoring the fact no scientists has ever claimed that evolution occurred as pro claims: If pro demands that direct observation is required to consider something true - then God cannot be accepted as existing for the lack of that same direct observation.

3a/d/e.) The Bible is not convincing.

Pro largely misses the point of this argument.

If a book was written under the auspices of a hyper intelligent super being for the express purpose of explaining to humanity both the meaning of their existence, the requirements for eternal salvation, and to help convince humanity to worship him:

One would fully expect the book to attract far more than 30% of humanity, and to not be so ambiguous as to fracture followers into thousands of denominations that believe different things about the inherent nature of that very same salvation.

On the other hand, if the Bible were written by bronze age humans, was spiritually faked, with limited knowledge of reality: this is exactly what we would expect to see.

Pro has claimed that the Bible isn’t a science or history book: yet pro himself argues that the Bible is historically accurate, contains valid verifiable science, and Genesis contains an account of the creation of earth, and early events; and pro claims it provides scientific references in dinosaurs and “life is in the blood” - which given that humans knew you could bleed to death is not a compelling piece of scientific knowledge.

Given that the bible contains statements on science, and history: if this book was truly inspired by the God it depicts, one would fully expect that once he decided to reference scientific principles - he would  not limit himself to choosing examples of science known to humans at the time.   Nor would we expect him to make the scientific evidence refute the facts of the events he allegedly participated in.

Yet - these things would both be clearly true if the Bible was invented.

This argument clearly shows that the Bible  has all the hallmarks of being written by Bronze Age humans, rather than inspired by God as a result.

Pros responses - as noted - is to simply provide a list of speculative and unsupported excuses as to why a book inspired by an omnipotent super being with access to infinite information would look likea book written by Bronze Age humans inventing a religion.

Pro then goes on to make a Gish Gallop of claims about how he knows the Bible is true; from claiming miracles and prophecies happened to asserting the Bible has no contradictions.

These are all bare assertions by pro, only half of which are supported by sources of questionable veracity.

As this debate is 10k characters, I don’t feel it reasonable to dedicate a thousand words to refute each individual claim that pro asserts but does not justify with an argument.

4.1) Cosmological argument.

Pro claims I have offered no evidence that the laws of causality have been disproven. This was provided in R1, in sources 6 and 7, then dropped by pro. Where I showed that we know particles can come from nothing, and events can occur that are not proceeded themselves caused by an event.

Pro also drops the additional case made in the last round.

I fully extend this point.

2.) Direct evidence for God.
4.2) Life is designed.
4.3.) Moral Law
4.4.) Historicity.

Pro does not offer an argument, and thus drops these points.

Note: posting a link instead of an argument is both unfair, and should be treated as poor conduct (as covered)

5.) Pro has not affirmed the resolution.

Pro drops this argument again. I extend.

6.) Plagurism.

Pro drops this argument again. I extend.

Use of sources / Conclusion

Pro appears to be frustrated at my argument, implying that I did not produce an argument and have relied on Wikipedia.

This is obviously not the case, and given that pros R2 consisted of him copy and pasting book quotes, I find the accusation rather ironic.

I’ve offered exceptionally detailed arguments as to why Christianity shares the hallmarks of being invented by humans - and used sources only to demonstrate the validity of the facts I use to justify these claims.

This is clearly an unfair and unreasonable accusation.



Round 5
"7.) AIG/ are untrustworthy."

"The conclusions of a website that almost explicitly states it would never draw any other possible conclusion, regardless of what the evidence and facts may state cannot possible be accepted as valid or trustworthy and should be rejected."
I like how instead of showing that the evidence they present are is false you just declare it false. Why not look at the evidence they present? When you have the truth everything else is false.

1.) Invented Religions
All religions are invented because they do not want to acknowledge the Creator. So they are untrue. The God of the Bible is the Truth not a religion. In other words the Bible is not a religion it is the Truth.

"1.a.) influence of Zoroastrianism:"
Again, there is no way Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism. Let us look at your source the Encyclopedia Britannica. Moses, who wrote the Pentateuch, lived in the 13th century or 1400 BC.[1] Zoroaster was born in c. 628 BC.[2] That is an almost 900 year difference! Let us now look at other Books of the Old Testament that were authored before Zoroaster. There is Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1st and Second Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Songs of Solomon, Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah and Job (which was written even before Moses). That is 27 of 39 Books written before Zoroaster was even thought of. Then you have Jeremiah, Lamentations and Daniel that were written during the times of Zoroaster. So that is 30 of 39 before Zoroastrianism became popular. That is most of the Old Testament. I think Judaism influenced Zoroastrianism heavily.

"3.b.) Evidence of a flood"
1. Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents.
2. Rapid burial of plants and animals
3. Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
4. Sediment transported long distances
5. Rapid or no erosion between strata

"Genetic bottle necks"
I gave Con a source to look at, but his biased little self didn't want to read it and refute it. So I will call him out and hope he reads and then refutes.

"3.c) Kinds"
Well, since Con doesn't read my sources why should I read his? Please give me one (just one) example of a lizard giving birth to a chicken. At least in my "kinds" argument God created dogs and they still reproduce dogs, now that sounds logical. What doesn't sound logical is a lizard giving birth to a chicken.

3a/d/e.) The Bible is not convincing.
"One would fully expect the book to attract far more than 30% of humanity, and to not be so ambiguous as to fracture followers into thousands of denominations that believe different things about the inherent nature of that very same salvation."
One reason for this, no one wants to do it God's way. Man wants to live without having to give accountability to a high being. Sin: fornication, lying, stealing, coveting, adultery, pleasure is very attractive for man, why give up my "fun". So they come up with fables like evolution to try to make God disappear so they don't have to fell accountable to anyone for their actions.

"Pro has claimed that the Bible isn’t a science or history book: yet pro himself argues that the Bible is historically accurate, contains valid verifiable science, and Genesis contains an account of the creation of earth, and early events"
Yep, I said that it is not a science textbook or a history textbook, BUT THE HISTORY AND SCIENCE FOUND IN IT IS ACCURATE. About the life in the blood, FOR CENTURIES PEOPLE WERE BLED TO DEATH TO REMOVE "BAD BLOOD". IF THEY WOULD HAVE READ THE BIBLE THEY WOULD HAVE KNOW THAT BLEEDING THEIR PATIENTS WAS NOT THE CORRECT WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. People also didn't know at the time that the Earth was round or that the universe was expanding. Or that not washing your hands before a surgery was deadly. Or that pigs meat carries diseases. Or that the life was in the blood. Also, starting in the 1200s people didn't believe in dinosaurs either.

"4.1) Cosmological argument."
"I have offered no evidence that the laws of causality have been disproven."
You still haven't. You gave me quantum physics. I gave you a rebuttal to it and a source, which you refuse to  look at. Probably because you are afraid.

2.) Direct evidence for God.
4.2) Life is designed.
4.3.) Moral Law
4.4.) Historicity.
Con is lying when he says I dropped these points. I did not, I gave him sources. He expects me to read his sources, but disregards mine and gives excuses on why he can't read them.

"I’ve offered exceptionally detailed arguments as to why Christianity shares the hallmarks of being invented by humans - and used sources only to demonstrate the validity of the facts I use to justify these claims."
No you haven't. Actually yo have hardly said anything. The only thing you have done is waive around sources.

7.) Validity of AIG

Pro does not defend AiG or, despite my presenting a clear reason why they can be discounted as reliable sources.

Pro demands I refute the information within dozens of links he provides; which is impractical given that a.) the limit is 10,000 chars and b.) Pro does not present specific facts to be challenged.

Given that I have shown that AiG is trustworthy, pros claims supported by these links must be considered suspect.

1.) invented religions

Pro concedes all other religions are invented - a major premise of my argument.

1.a.) Influence of Zoroastrianism.

Pros only argument against the claim that Zoroaster did not influence Judaism, is that one book of the bible *may* have origins as old as 900 BCE.

As noted in the last round, historians place the likely date of genesis as we know it at around 500BCE, though it may have earlier origins.

Pro appears to imply that as genesis is from 900 BCE - that there is no possibility it could have been modified or changed between the time it was written or first orally transferred, and the first recorded text of genesis dates 700 years later.

Even if pros claim is correct - it is not a refutation, as Zoroastrianism influence could have simply shaped the evolution of genesis as a book.

3.b.) The flood.

In the last round I explained that a global flood would be expected to produce bottle necks, assortments of mammals and dinosaurs, and would likely allow us to find DNA in almost all fossils we find.

Pro drops this point, and simply links an external site in lieu of an argument, so should be considered to have dropped these key points.

3.c) Kinds

Pro offers only one way of determining what a kind is - reproductive isolation- and I have provided evidence showing this  can arise naturally. Pro drops this completely.

Pro again demands direct evidence in order to believe something is true - this refutes pro’s position as we haven’t seen God create anything either.

Nothing in evolution requires a lizard to give birth to a chicken; the suggestion is an inherent straw man. Evolution requires dogs to remain dogs.

If some dogs evolve into a new Clade, they will become a sub grouping of dogs - but still dogs. The same way that dogs are still carnivoraforms, and mammals and chordates, and eukaryote.

3.) A/D/E - God is not convincing.

Pro again drops the entire thesis and reiterated his assertion that science and history contained in the bible is accurate.

The science/history in the bible is not accurate. Kinds do not exist, there is major evidence missing for a global flood.

The most compelling scientific fact, is a nondescript assertion that “life is in the blood”.  This does not sound a compelling, valid and accurate claim - as much as the type of information known to Bronze Age humans. This point was droppedby pro.

Pro goes to claim that:

“People also didn't know at the time that the Earth was round or that the universe was expanding. Or that not washing your hands before a surgery was deadly. Or that pigs meat carries diseases.”

People didn’t know any of those things until they were independently discovered.

Pro cannot possibly claim the Bible actually said any of these things - if no human at any point appeared to realize it said any of those things.

Pro has not given any specific passages or information for me to refute, so I have no specifics to argue against:  but it seems likely that pro is simply interpreting vague passages with hindsight - such as how Nostradamus can be used to predict all sorts of current events.

4.1.) Laws of causality.

As explained - I showed how events can occur without having been caused. I provided evidence for this in source (6) and (7) in R1. 

Pro again provides no rebuttal; only a link in lieu of an argument.

4.) Design / Moral law / Historicity 

Pro has not offered an argument to refute or rebuttal my claims on these points. 

Only links, somehow expecting me to refute an entire website in 10,000 characters, whilst he simply throws out links.

5/6.) Not affirmed the resolution / plagiarism 

Pro continues to drop these points again.

Voting issues:


Pro Plagiarized his entire R2.

Pro resorted to posting dozens of links with no argument, and demanded that I go through and rebut the entire content of each.

Pro also resorted in two cases to Gish gallops where a half dozen claims were asserted in a single paragraph.

These are highly toxic behaviours and clearly warrant a conduct violation against pro


As explained in point 7, pro relies solely on a heavily biased and unreliable source. I have relied on a variety of scientific and contemporary sources to justify key claims made. Pro has used links instead of arguments, whereas I have linked specific sources to justify facts that form the basis of my thesis.

This clearly warrants source awards to con.


Con:My thesis is that the Bible, and the concept of God itself is most likely invented. Pro agrees all religions - except his - are invented. 

Pro agrees Zoroastrianism is invented - and as shown, Zoroastrianism strongly influences the tenets of Christianity - pro challenged this via the timeline, but as shown above, there is no issue with Zoroastrianism having influenced early Judaism after the first versions of genesis were written - causing subsequent modifications.

I also showed that the bible is clearly a flawed book that fails to validate itself against the events it depicts, and falls short of a compelling book that appears to be written or influenced by a super being.

Pro offers no real argument against these latter points, relying both on base assertions, and Gish gallops to try and argue the Bible is compelling.

Pro offers no specifics, or passages for me to refute - and has resorted mainly to generic assertions in single line sentences that he appears to demand I look up, explain and rebut within my 10,000 character limit. Pro is clearly not arguing in good faith.

If the God of the Bible actually did exist : we would expect so much more than we see. We should expect to see direct evidence (as pro demands for evolution), unified theology and an overwhelming preponderance of believers - as the product of a divine super-being, we should expect nothing less.

Pro has dropped the overwhelming majority of points - so many that I have lost count.

Pro: Pro must show that the God of the bible exists and is real.

To this end: pro offers only two sets of arguments that support HISgod, over other gods. The historicity of the bible, and the truth claims in the bible.

The remainder of pros arguments can be ignored as even if they are accepted as true, they do not prove the resolution.

I have argued that the Historicity of the bible is largely irrelevant; as a fictional book can reference non fictional things. That it contains real history does not mean that the supernatural claims are all real.

I also pointed out that the same historical accuracy can be found in other religious books too.

Pro offers no argument against either of these positions. So must be considered refuted.

Pro also claims that the bible contains a number of truths: pro is vague, non specific and hasn’t explicitly stated what the Bible actually states, and how he can show it is true.

I showed repeated examples of where the bible falls foul of basic science, and basic claims.

Voters should note that the claims pro made about the Bible were not defended. And we’re made in two paragraphs including a half dozen claims each, no more than a few words for each claim.

Such assertions are not arguments, and cannot be countered or argued against in the confines of 10,000 characters. As such these assertions should be rejected out of hand on this basis.

From all of this, it’s clear that the only possible reasonable vote is for con.