Instigator / Pro
17
1378
rating
36
debates
38.89%
won
Topic
#1271

The God Described in the Bible Cannot Exist

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
2
3

After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

GuitarSlinger
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
18
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description

I will be arguing that it is impossible for the God described in the Bible to exist. My opponent will be arguing that it is possible for that God to exist. Burden of Proof is shared.

=DEFINITIONS=
Exist:
1. To have an objective reality of being

=RULES=
1. No Kritiks of the topic or of the definitions in the description.
2. No new arguments are allowed in the final round.
3. No trolling is allowed.
4. Debate structure must be followed.
5. Plagiarism is not allowed.
6. Citation of sources for quotes, statistics, and definitions is required.
7. We will use the KJV Bible in this debate. If you wish to use another version, DM me before accepting.
8. Any violation of this rule and the rules above merits a loss.

=STRUCTURE=
Round 1: Opening Argument
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Final Statement.

May the best debater win.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

You should have argued the ontological argument

-->
@GuitarSlinger
@TheAtheist

Did Pro concede the debate in Round 4? I would like to cast a vote but I want to understand more clearly why Pro forfeited in round 4.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

"Prior to the Luther, there were not "Protestant" churches-- there was one Church, and this one Church compiled the Canon of the Bible"

This would make a great debate topic!

-->
@TheAtheist

That's a great question that many people don't realize or understand. In short, the KJV is a relatively "new" creation, borne out of the Protestant Reformation. Prior to the Luther, there were not "Protestant" churches-- there was one Church, and this one Church compiled the Canon of the Bible

1. The canon of the Bible came into existence around the 3rd or 4th century and it had 73 books (46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament)
2. This Bible was in use for over 1000 years until the "Protestant Reformation"
3. As a result of the reformation, 7 books from the OT were removed and this "new version" of the Bible began to be used by Protestant demoninations. The KJV is what is often referred to as a "Protestant" Bible, and is "missing" 7 books that are contained in the "Catholic Bible".

The NABRE version has the approval of the Holy See (Catholic Church) for use and retains the 7 books that the Protestant Bible does not contain (which explains many of the disparities between Catholics and Protestants).

So, on the surface KJV may look similar to the NABRE version, but in reality the KJV is lacking 7 books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch)

How and why the books were removed is subject to very lengthy debate as well....

-->
@GuitarSlinger

It's all good. And can I ask, why did you want to use the NABRE? I compared its verses to the KJV and they are pretty similar.

-->
@TheAtheist

Hey I'm sorry for posting Bible Version in the comments and not directly messaging you. It wasn't until after I posted the comment that I realized you specified to DM you. My bad.

Per my opponent's request, we will be using NABRE version of the Bible in this debate.

dammmmmmit, I was going to accpet

-->
@TheAtheist

Also, can you please provide a definition for what you mean by "objective reality" ?

-->
@TheAtheist

I'm game. But you never really participated in my debate on the whole "Omnipotence" argument.

Can we use the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)

http://www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

The KJV is a relatively new invention. Whereas the NABRE has the approval of the Holy See and is true to the version the Holy See has been using for some 1600 years or so.

-->
@TheAtheist

hmmmm... I've seen many debates over the PROBABILITY of a God existing, but not as many over the POSSIBILITY. It has seemed to me that many don't question the possibility of a God so much as the probability of one. I look forward to hearing your take on this!

...and, perhaps, if no one accepts, I may take you up on this for fun.

I really want to get back up to 7 and 7 and a even win ratio and I think TheAtheist is a worthy opponent I can handle. I will see how things shape up in my gambling debate.

-->
@TheAtheist

Great job with the no kritiks. Can't challenge assumptions have to work under what you wanted out of the debate.

-->
@TheAtheist

Good luck on this debate. To predict some counterpoints, you may want to skim through one of my debates on this topic from a few months ago: https://www.debateart.com/debates/566/the-existence-of-god-is-impossible

And no, I do not want to debate this right now. I've been hounded by a couple false flag Christians lately, and don't want to imagine how they think.

-->
@Athias

Done! Thank you for your suggestion.

-->
@TheAtheist

First, your definition is a bit of an ad lib as the citation states, "to have real being, whether material or spiritual"; if you operate on this definition, then you'll lose this debate in an expedient fashion. A competent debater will use it against you. (So I recommend you edit your description for your own benefit.) If after some time, no one else accepts, I'll consider accepting your challenge.