Instigator / Pro
Points: 4

Is theistic evolution biblical?


The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
Points: 7
Yes, is it biblical, once you have done the scholarly research for it. And, it's been proven that Genesis might be a poetic creation account against the pagan gods. And, there are Bible passage that may hint evolution (E.g, Ecclesiastes 3:18) So yes, theistic evolution is biblical.
1. Don't uses logical fallacy (E. G, Strawman, Ad hominem, False cause, Burden of proof, Etc, Etc. )
2. Stay on topic.
3. Give your opponent evidence, and not feelings.
4. Don't mock or call someone names.
5. Don't disclare victory.
Ecclesiastes 3:18
Round 1
Yes, is it biblical, once you have done the scholarly research for it. And, it's been proven that Genesis might be a poetic creation account against the pagan gods. And, there are Bible passage that may hint evolution (E.g, Ecclesiastes 3:18) So yes, theistic evolution is biblical.
I will answer the two claims you seem to be making and provide an argument against theistic evolution.

And, it's been proven that Genesis might be a poetic creation account against the pagan gods.

It is not proven that something “might” be true. Either you prove it to be true or you hypothesize it might be true. It seems misleading to present a recent interpretation of Genesis as “proven” while also admitting the questionable validity of it. The view that the creation account in Genesis is not a historical narrative goes against the traditional interpretation held throughout most of church history. While tradition alone should not determine doctrine, I don’t think we should simply dismiss it because something new might be true.

And, there are Bible passage that may hint evolution (E.g, Ecclesiastes 3:18)

The use of Ecclesiastes 3:18 as a possible “hint” at evolution is still just a hypothesis and is not proven. As with the first argument, it is very difficult to rule out all possibility of a certain interpretation. However, Ecclesiastes 3:18 is referring to the mortality of both man and beast, as can be seen in verse 19. In fact, verses 19-21 seem to make a sharp distinction between man and beast except for that both will die. Psalm 49:12 reiterates this point by saying man is like the beasts regarding death. If Ecclesiastes 3:18 is a reference to evolution, then wouldn’t the spirit of man have to be the same as the spirit of the beast in verse 21? This leads me to an argument I believe needs to be answered.

If humans came about through theistic evolution, why do humans have souls and animals do not?

I am assuming you would say that humans evolved from apes. Regardless of one’s view on evolution, it is clear that humans are distinct from animals because humans have souls and animals do not.  I do not believe that theistic evolution can allow for the distinct creation of man as a creature with a soul who is made in the image of God. How can you biblically explain how humans acquired a soul outside of a historical reading of Genesis?

Round 2
"It is not proven that something “might” be true."
Kinda think of it. Maybe I shouldn't use "might".

"The view that the creation account in Genesis is not a historical narrative goes against the traditional interpretation held throughout most of church history."
Then, how come there are early fathers who didn't take the days literal? (E.g Irenaues, Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr.)

"I am assuming you would say that humans evolved from apes."
Ape like creature*

While not all the early church fathers held to a literal six-day creation, nor did I argue for that point, none of the names mentioned held to an old-earth creation account that is required for theistic evolution. Therefore, the point still stands that the traditional interpretation of the church does not agree with your position, regardless of how they viewed the days in Genesis.

You made the correction that humans evolved from an ape-like creature but you did not address the question:

If humans came about through theistic evolution, why do humans have souls and animals do not?
Regardless of one’s view on evolution, it is clear that humans are distinct from animals because humans have souls and animals do not.  I do not believe that theistic evolution can allow for the distinct creation of man as a creature with a soul who is made in the image of God. How can you biblically explain how humans acquired a soul outside of a historical reading of Genesis?

Round 3
Come on bro...
Round 4
"While not all the early church fathers held to a literal six-day creation, nor did I argue for that point, none of the names mentioned held to an old-earth creation account that is required for theistic evolution"
Then, how come young earth creationism wasn't a thing until the 19th century?

"Regardless of one’s view on evolution, it is clear that humans are distinct from animals because humans have souls and animals do not."
But, the Hebrew word for soul is apply to both humans and animals.
To the contrary, young earth creationism was the traditional interpretation of the church until the 19th century when atheists and rationalists needed a theory to explain the origin of humanity without God or the supernatural. For just a few references to the early church view on a young earth, see Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 1 pg. 557 (Irenaeus); vol. 2 pg. 9 (Theophilus); vol. 7 pg. 333 (Victorinus). I will provide more references if needed. Do you have any specific sources of the church holding specifically to an earth that was millions or billions of years old, or to a view of theistic evolution prior to the 19th century?
I will mention that I believe Augustine has a somewhat complicated view and I don't think should be used as evidence for a young or old earth without very clear reasoning and sources. 

That is true about the same word being applied to both animals and man in Ecclesiastes. For clarification, it’s the word for “spirit” not “soul.”  However, before giving a meaningful response, I have to ask something:
Do you believe there is a difference between the spirit of humans and the spirit of animals?
It seems that you are implying there is no distinction in the immaterial part of both humans and animals.

Round 5
"To the contrary, young earth creationism was the traditional interpretation of the church until the 19th century when atheists and rationalists needed a theory to explain the origin of humanity without God or the supernatural."
Have you read any books on this topic?
Well that isn't much of an argument and you seemed to have missed my reference to a direct source showing the beliefs of a few early church fathers in young earth creationism. Perhaps I wasn't clear so I will just include a few sources (I won't bother with proper citations) and encourage you to view them when you have time. Even if you don't agree, I think it is important to study what opposing views are arguing for. This will either strengthen your own convictions or reveal inconsistencies that will bring you to a better understanding of the truth, which is the whole purpose of debating. Thanks for the dialogue.

Ante-Nicene Fathers (see previous references for volume and page numbers to that person's view, others can be found as well)

As it is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary? Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., 2016 (it looks like almost all of it can be read for free at this link)

Link to a sermon exploring the biblical account of creation, part 1 of a series
--> @Fruit_Inspector
Re: Bible continued
I have thought much about the afterlife, and I think nothingness is an option, even with a god.
I have also heard of several different interpretations to the afterlife, mostly from Judaism, which officially almost never mentions it, thus many interpretations, including no afterlife, are presented.
My favorite 2 interpretations involve heaven and purgatory, where purgatory is like hell, but temporary (finite punishment relative to the crime, rather then eternal punishment for any and all who dont qualify for heaven.
The other interpretation I like is that the afterlife is an empty estate at birth. Every good deed you build up your land/house. Every sin, you dump a bunch of garbage or knock something down. In the end, you live in whatever it is you built.
Both interpretations are based of deeds. An afterlife based on faith speaks to a vain, imperfect, possibly evil god, imo.
One interpretation from a christian that sounded ok was that if you dont have faith in god, why would you want to spend eternity with him... which sounds ok, if the alternative for good people who did not believe was something other than eternal torture.
--> @Fruit_Inspector
Re: Bible
I cannot provide specific passages, only the spirit of the message in general, although I'm sure you have enough experience with the bible to refute me if I'm wrong. What I can say is that many of the sayings and narratives attributed to Jesus in the first person feel very different to the spirit of christianity as practiced in the mainstream today. And many of the practices in maintstream christianity today are justified by 3rd person accounts of Jesus, presumably by the disciples.
For example, I've heard many of the passages regarding homosexuality and how to treat homosexuals came from Paul, a person who never met Jesus except for by his own account in a vision. Paul persecuted christians prior to conversion, and seemingly brought his intolerance to the faith after conversion. Instead of embracing the sinner and finding out what lead them on that path, sin became something to shame. Nowadays gays are protested rather then welcomed by Christians. I do not believe that is what Jesus taught, but it is the teaching that has been passed down.
I certainly hope jesus, in the first person, did not put faith above deeds. If he did, rather then being convinced, I will be disappointed. But you will certainly be a greater authority on this subject then I.
1. You are right regarding the reformation, however since the reformation, there have been a vast number of protestant ideologies that came from that personal reading of the scripture. This subjectivity in interpretation is one strong proof against it being a divine word. Unless god intended for different people to receive a different message from his text, this confusion is not becoming of a divine word. I would greatly dispute how trustworthy that testament is. This testament is presented to us by humans, and it is blind faith that we assume that this is its original form. Its meaning could have been corrupted intentionally by evil men, or even unintentionally due to fallible translation.
--> @Fruit_Inspector
Re: morality
Nobody claimed moralities independent of god are objective, rather I am claiming that moralities dependent on god are also subjective, as the god behind them is also subjective. You seem to support this by saying that each theistic group has "its own objective moralities." if there are numerous objective moralities, then they are not objective.
The concept of good I was referring to is subjective. I am referring to my own concept of good that was built based off the values of the society I was raised in. Although it would be comforting, I do not believe there is an objective morality, so none of my points were designed to demonstrate, defend, support, or mimic an objective morality. Simply my western definition of what is good, and my judgement of other culture's historical moralities.
It is my subjective opinion that more individual rights are better. That is based off the individualistic western society I was raised in. Many eastern cultures are collectivistic. Actually almost all human societies prior to modern western culture were collectivistic, and they valued the greater good above the individual. Personally I can understand the reasoning and certainly some aspect of that seem good, but the values of my culture seem better, at least to me. These opinions are as subjective as me saying that modern action movies are better. Many would agree with me, and I can say it with confidence, but we can all agree art is a subjective subject, despite many very decisive opinions.
It is historically agreed upon that most Germans did not know the full truth about the holocaust. There have been some atrocious moralities in history, like Sparta, but the secrecy of the holocaust shows that even Germany knew this was wrong. It was just politically convenient and lust for power overpowered the morality of those in power. I hope that answer is more palatable. Germany was, after all, a western nation with western ideals/morals.
--> @Fruit_Inspector
re: intelligent design cont
the question of who set the law of physics is different from the goldilocks habitable environment rarity question which has, imo, been debunked. We have no knowledge of what is beyond our universe, or other universes if they exist, so objectively we dont know. However I do not believe the big bang was the beginning of everything, I believe in the multiverse, which may or may not allow for variable physical laws. I cannot answer this question objectively, and yes my multiverse idea is a belief, not a known fact.
The multiverse is not science, it is science fiction. Not only is it just a hypothesis, it is an untestable hypothesis. Many scientifically inclined people may support the idea, just like many scientists believe in god. but their belief doesn't translate into science until it is testable.
could you please explain how nature could be used to answer all situations? Our view of nature assumes natural laws function the same everywhere. An intelligent designer can turn rules on and off at will. Nature simply follows the same rules throughout without error. How can nature be anything but consistent? Can you elaborate?
Yes math is always theoretical as far as I can tell, a good example will easily convince me otherwise, but if you look at einstein's celebrated theory of relativity. It has long been accepted, but only after we discovered physical gravitational waves did the headlines say "einstein's theory proven." his theory was entirely mathematical, which was good enough as it never failed. But it was never empirical until we saw physical evidence of waves of the fabric of space.
--> @Fruit_Inspector
I'm sorry, got distracted.
Re: intelligent design
I didn't say it was a 1:1 ratio, but i did say it is inevitable given the scale of space and time.
What I said is that although an intelligent designer can make literally anything, nature can only proceed along 1 course of action. That course of action is the one we see.
As for the dice roll, as you roll more and more dice it is increasingly likely that *overall* it will become closer and closer to 50/50, but it is also increasingly likely to get unlikely streaks. A professor from Berkley, Deborah Nolan, had a famous activity where she would have her class split into 2 groups, 1 group would make up a series of 100 coin flips, while the other group would actually flip a coin 100 times. She would always know which was based off real coin flips because it would always have unlikely long streaks in the mix. Overall both are true. if you roll enough times you will have both outsized streaks AND an overall 50/50 result. Time, scale, and repetition make the unlikely inevitable.
It is difficult to tell how unlikely a "ball of matter *of unknown origin" would result in a big bang. The fact that it is unknown leaves too many variables to result in your conclusion. We have no idea what the ball was, what set it off, or what the conditions were before it went off. It is impossible to determine likelihood objectively. Remember, the big bang is the origin of our universe, we do not know that there is nothing before our universe, or beyond it. Science does not assume or guess, it recites what we know. no more, no less. We did get slammed by a meteor, maybe even a planetoid. Its ripped off a giant chunk of our planet. That chunk is now called the moon. Life is more resilient then you give it credit for, and even if this planet was made uninhabitable, there are countless planets which would be alternative candidates. There inevitably will be a success and that success may not be as unlikely as you think.
--> @Nemiroff
Re: Bible
Could you provide one saying or teaching of the disciples that was in disagreement with Jesus’ teachings and that was also not rebuked by Jesus? You seem to think that the followers of Jesus in the Bible somehow had completely different teaching than Him but I haven’t found any that exist. Even if John 3:16 was a commentary by John and not a direct quote of Jesus, Jesus taught about hell more than anyone in the Bible. Again, I will admit that horrible acts have been committed by people throughout history in the name of Christianity. I will also outrightly condemn them because I think it can be clearly and plainly shown why they were not in line with Scripture. However, Jesus did demand people to turn from their evil ways and believe in Him alone or be condemned to hell for those evil deeds.
Question 1: That’s not a completely inaccurate statement by any means, but I would not personally use that generalization to describe the Reformation since it had more to do with the authority of Scripture and the nature of salvation. There is an aspect of a personal connection with God, but it is a connection with the God revealed in the Bible, not a god of your own personal creation. He has given the tools of reason and understanding so people could understand Scripture, which is the most trustworthy testimony we have. He has also set eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11) as a “tool” of understanding. Don’t you ever have thoughts about what will happen when you did, or if there is an afterlife?
Question 2: I appreciate you sharing that. I definitely wasn’t just asking as a way to debunk it and somehow prove Christianity to be true, I was actually interested to hear your thoughts on it, so thanks.
--> @Nemiroff
Re: Morality
When I talk about objective morality being the result of theism, I just mean that each particular theistic system would have its own objective standard for humanity to follow. In my case, I am arguing for Christian theism as revealed by the Bible as the objective standard. I also haven’t seen any moral philosophies independent of a god that don’t end up being subjective in nature, but I haven’t done an exhaustive study so perhaps I’m mistaken.
The problem I see in your posts is that you seem to be appealing to objective morality in your defense of subjective morality. Let me point out why I think this. First, you are trying to point out why the Bible doesn’t fit with a “good God” but that presupposes that there is a concept of good to be appealed to.
The same could be said when you stated, “a few hiccups aside, we have been slowing marching in the direction of less atrocities and suffering, more equality and empathy.” Why is more equality and empathy desirable, and how can our subjective morality improve? That would imply that there is a standard which we should be working toward, which would have to be an objective standard that contains equality and empathy. To say that any one moral system is better than another necessarily implies that it is closer to the ideal objective moral system.
Now, I have pointed out what I believe to be an inconsistency with the position that morality is subjective. Let me put it in a practical form: I am personally not satisfied with saying the only reason to condemn the Holocaust was because essentially, America came to a different result than Germany in their vote on whether it was acceptable to exterminate Jews. This doesn’t automatically make me right and I have actually been hoping to hear arguments that speak to this point in my time on this site.
--> @Nemiroff
Re: Intelligent Design
You seem to be saying that chance has nothing to do with it because there is only one possible outcome, a 1:1 ratio. The problem is you are not statistically guaranteed one particular outcome when multiple outcomes are possible such as in a lottery, and you are certainly not guaranteed the most unlikely outcome. If you flip a coin, you could get 100 tails in a row. It’s highly unlikely but statistically possible. And with time and chance, it keeps becoming more likely that you will actually get an even mix of heads and tails rather than a continual result of all tails.
This is a simplistic analogy compared to the events in the universe leading to life. But in the same way that it is highly unlikely to get 100 tails in a row, it is even more unlikely that a tiny ball of matter with no known origin underwent a big bang, formed galaxies stars and planets, and one planet in particular that formed with the conditions for human life. The problem is that life coming about isn’t a probable mix of heads and tails. It requires getting tails every single time for every condition necessary for life (orbit, tilt, atmosphere, chemical makeup, etc., of the earth). If you get even one heads in the process of our galaxy and earth being formed, then no life. Or, what if a giant meteorite blasted the earth apart? That’s a different outcome that does not produce life and follows the laws of nature. Also, were the laws of nature a result of the big bang? Are they an eternal constant or could they have been different? Now I’m not forcing you to answer each question, I’m just trying to show that I don’t think we can say that there is only one possible outcome from a naturalist perspective.
I will admit that it would also be fair to say a designer could fit any situation, but so could natural formation. The question then comes down to evidence and probability.
I am also curious, do you consider all mathematical evidence empirical or philosophical?
--> @Fruit_Inspector
Re: bible
being illogical usually requires contradiction. a contradiction usually requires at least 2 points. human's susceptibility to sin is just 1 point, you have to finish the sentence to complete a thought:
"A good God would not create a people so susceptible to sin, and then obsess about it as a priority."
I also followed it up with other aspects that dont fit with a "good god."
I do not find those things as depressing because there was no design intending them, and if you look back at the history of humanity, a few hiccups aside, we have been slowly marching in the direction of less atrocities and suffering, more equality and empathy. Our subjective morality has only improved, and continue to improve, with time. I have faith in humanity. Institutional secularism was one of those steps, a step that was championed by our forefathers.
your bible passages: are these the words of jesus, or the narrator? especially John 3:16, is jesus talking in the 3rd person?!? "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son." So far I have mostly agreed with sayings attributed to jesus in the 1st person, it is these disciples, the presumed narrators, that I question and am often horrified by.
question 1: Regarding my personal god... yes.
Was that not btw the reason for the protestant reformation? to make your own personal connection to god? using the tools god has given me, this is the only obvious conclusion. I believe that to be a more trustworthy source then word of mouth.
question 2: I am assuming the god of the bible, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent. However, i dont agree with the events and claims the bible makes about him. Many like the 10th plague gnaw at the root of his benevolence. hardening his heart to coerce someone in order to justify the final punishment! heck no. that is evil. eternal hell for disbelief regardless of actions, evil. only bad men are obsessed with worship.
--> @Fruit_Inspector
Re: morality
I didn't say anyone lacks a world view. I said atheism is not a world view. No other group is defined by what they dont believe in or partake in. Its like saying someone is not a poker player... that says nothing about what activity they actually do. There are many moral philosophies independent of god. Saying not god doesnt say anything about what they actually believe in. Furthermore, theistic morallity is hardly objective. Which theism? They dont all agree! And considering it is possible this is a man made book, there is nothing objective about it.
Re nazis
It was their morality that what they did was right. It was our morality that they were very wrong, and justified war to stop it. It is scary. We are responsible for our own actions and decisions. Responsibility is a very scary thing. I think we live up to it.
I didnt mean anything by dominance of atheism because atheism isnt a thing. It isnt a belief. Its a lack of belief. I was using your language from your claim that an atheist minority is dictating the world view. What our forefathers did was remove religion from places of power (government) because religion cannot be trusted to not oppress other faiths. They didnt establish atheist dominance, they removed religious dominance to create a neutral society that protects all people. As it should be.
--> @Fruit_Inspector
Re: intelligent design
The point of that example was to be hypothetical. To show that no matter the scenario, a designer is always an option. However for nature there is but 1 outcome... and that is the outcome that we see... too coincidental.
Nature is far from random. It may be chaotic, but everything follows precise rules. Only the elements on the top right of the periodic table are prone to easy reactivity. They are the elements that make up life. Nature is good at making small adaptations, but not starting from scratch. The eye is an excellent example: according to science, it evolved underwater, which explains why til this day ALL eyes, including our own, are filled with fluid with the exact same light bending index as sea water. Our brains must constantly compensate for the blur. Nature could not simply make a new eye from scratch, it accomidated what it had. However god could do anything. Make every animal unique and function in a different way. That is impossible for nature. The mechanism of.evolution demands slow change from an original default. Fundamentals like sugar metabolism are unchanges throughout the tree of life
Life on a random planet is unlikely, just like winning the lotto. Maybe even less. But the universe is vast, so is time. If you play the lotto 99 trillion times... your statistically gauranteed to win. Given enough attempts, the improbable becomes inevitable.
Positive evidence for intelligent design requires not the likelyhood of a design, but evidence of a designer. Right now intelligent design has evidence (arguable due to the statistical argument i just said) equivalent to the expansion of galaxies creating the big bang HYPOTHESIS. That was not proof but just a suspicion. And i do not think we well be able to detect anything of the designer any time soon. God is as of now a matter of faith, impossible to prove or disprove. Science cannot say he does not exist, and never has. But it also cannot say he does exist.
--> @Nemiroff
Re: Bible
Don’t worry, I think everyone is entitled to their own belief. In fact, I would say that is both constitutional and biblical!
You stated that one reason Christianity is illogical and depressing is because of human susceptibility to sin. But whether you believe in God or not, the same amount of evil is happening in the world. Do you find it less depressing knowing that violence, murder, rape, torture, death, and all the other terrible things are just meaningless events in an uncaring universe?
I will just mention that Jesus is the founder of Christianity so it would be ironic for Him to be appalled by His own teachings. Admittedly, many people have used the incorrectly used the Bible to justify evil things throughout history. However, Jesus was not simply concerned with embracing people and seeking their improvement with support and love. He taught about hell more than anyone else in the entire Bible (Matthew 13:40-43), and He was concerned about people repenting of their sin and believing in Him alone for forgiveness (Mark 1:15; John 3:16-18).
I do have two questions for you if you don’t mind me asking. You said you have an idea of a god that is unique since it does not fit any of the “varied works of men,” and you live by the “good values” of this god. Obviously I don’t have a full view of your beliefs and don’t want to presume so I’m genuinely curious: would you say that you are creating your own personal god based on your beliefs, or even holding up your personal thoughts and values as “god”?
Second, you obviously don’t believe in the Christian God and you have brought up a few disputes or disagreements with the claims of the Bible. I would be interested to know then, what you would say that your biggest problem or disagreement with Christianity is? Perhaps a different way to ask would be what is the biggest reason you don’t believe in the God of the Bible?
--> @Nemiroff
Re: Morality
I don’t think anyone lacks a worldview because worldviews don’t require a god, it’s simply how you view the world. Now I don’t think the distinction between “belief in no god” or “lack of belief in a god” is really all that important unless we get on to a topic such as how to determine morality. The reason is that subjective morality is consistent with atheism/naturalism (standard set by humans), and objective morality is consistent with theism (standard set by God). It seems you would agree with this at least to some degree? Either way, I think that subjective morality is a scary way to live because that means that right and wrong is ultimately determined by who has the bigger stick. A dilemma seems to rise if I were to ask you if the Nazi extermination of Jews was wrong. To say yes would be objectively imposing your morals on another society, but to say no carries serious implications for your moral standard.
Even the fundamentals that you listed such as stealing and murder cannot be assumed in subjective morality because there is no universal agreement on what stealing and murder are, or if they are actually wrong. Don’t you think it’s at least a little unsettling to think that something as important as personhood is a moveable standard that can include an individual in one society, and exclude them in another?
I’m not sure exactly what you meant by the “dominance of atheism” being established by our forefathers so this may not exactly answer that premise, but the founding fathers established our government with the principle that humans have inalienable rights given to them by God. The government does not grant rights or take them away, it only recognizes and protects them. At least that was the original intent. The basis of our constitutional rights actually presuppose God, while also not allowing the government to legislate personal belief.
--> @Nemiroff
Re: Intelligent Design
The problem with fitting the design story into all scenarios is that you are creating hypothetical realities to argue against actual reality. We don’t live in a universe where life and existence are near certainty and there is no reason to think that a universe such as that exists. The fact is that the fine tuning of our universe (whether by chance or design) is our reality. The intelligent design argument says that the universe is too precise to allow for random structuring to be a reasonable explanation. So really, the only scenario that the designer story fits is one where life exists because of the improbability of it. As for your biology example, I would say that many different systems or animal forms, rather than uniformity, would be a stronger evidence for randomness than design. Why would uniformity and consistency be used to describe anything structured at random, especially something as complex as the universe?
Now I’m specifically curious as to whether you think that intelligent design is scientific. You disagreed, but the arguments you applied to this theory are not the ones I had in mind so let me elaborate. The fact is that people have looked at the universe and made empirical observations about the requirements and improbability of life on earth. Even the slightest differences in the orbit, tilt, atmosphere, chemical makeup, etc., of the earth would make the existence of life impossible. These are scientific, empirical observations. People have derived mathematical probabilities of the existence of life from these observations. Whether they are right or wrong, I am wondering how arriving at a conclusion based on empirical observations and mathematical probabilities is not scientific.
If you still don’t agree that it is scientific, then what “positive evidence” would be required for it to be considered scientific?
--> @Fruit_Inspector
Re: bible
Warning, i quit discussing religion because the following response upsets many of my opponents.
Ive learned parts of it as a child, If you believe in a God, it may convert you to a specific God, but it is doubtful it can make one theistic. Too fantastical. As an adult, only a personal experience will matter. I acknowledge, and am open to the idea of a god, but the only religion that makes any sense is b'hai, which pretty much said God sent each people a different message based on what they needed to learn (unity, law, tolerance, etc). Christianity is illogical and depressing. A good God would not create a people so susceptible to sin, and then obsess about it as a priority. He would not give the most insignifcant of sins an infinite punishment passed down forever (and the womens punishment sounds like it was written by a man). And he would not vainly demand endless repitions of lord and how hallowed his name is. Those are *clearly* optional, and i think he would appreciate your own words.
Even If i were to become theistic, i like wont be religious. Especially christianity which i personally think would appaul jesus. The only obsession jesus had with personal social sins (not greed and murder), was to embrace the people and seek to improve them through support and love. Not shame and tough love. Maybe christianity is as good as any other, just not the way the mainstream or at any point in history practice it. I already have an idea of god, and it doesnt fit anything in what i consider to be the varied work of men. I already live by the good values he would represent. I also appreciate this reality. If he is sentient, he will understand. If not, my appreciation is not affected. Although my "appreciation" would be different if i wasnt born so lucky. (Healthy, 1st world).
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
While not everything always needs to be responded to, pro kept dropping the wide sweeps of cons concise case.
Con repeatedly pointed out the soul issue, and the Imago Dei not applying the animals (which feeds into genesis of us lording over them rather than being equals). Pro's only (eventually) response was to say that there might have been a translation error.
Whereas pro's case was disproven on the grounds that it implied a vague possibility for reinterpretation, rather than actually proving anything.