Lets discuss the bible. (66 books, Non debate, non moderated, non pro/con)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Judges
No debating, no pro/con positions and no voting/moderated voting. Do not join if you are going to debate the truthfulness of scripture or God. Think of it like cross examination of our beliefs or views.
This verse also proves that the universe is expanding, basically saying that God has expanded the universe, and spread them out further. We now know today that yes, the universe is
expanding. This fact was proven by the Hubble Space Telescope in 1929.[LINK} The New York Times reports:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
We know an MGB could exist and is logically coherent, then it has to exist in every possible world. To illustrate this, let’s say we have 100 possible worlds. It is better to be in 56 of those 100 possible worlds than 14. It is better to be in more possible worlds than not. So, a maximally great being would have to maximally great in the fact that it exists in every possible world. Now, if God existed in every possible world, it would logically follow that God, an MGB, would exist in the actual world. Finally, if God existed in the actual world, it would exist now. God exists.
This argument only applies to God. If you were to say that a maximally great pen could exist then it has to exist, couldn’t you say that anything in your imagination could exist? No, there are no definitions that could define a maximally great pen or cheeseburger, but there are real parameters for an MGB. However, even a pen could not be maximally great in the first place even if it was defined. You could always find a better pen and if you try to Think of the best possible pen, you can always think of one which is better. Until, eventually, you arrive at an all-powerful, all-knowing, all good, sentient pen which can change its form if desired and only appear to those it seems fit, etc, etc, etc. in other words, you get God, choosing to take the form of a pen. Yet, if the pen was all-powerful and all-knowing and all good, and capable of taking any form, the question remains why it should stay a pen. God exists because of this classic 942-year-old argument.{LINK}
I have to weigh the arguements according to burden of proof. According to pro, he wasnt trying to prove anything, so i have to weigh arguments based on relevance to topic. Pro seemed like he wanted to discuss the bible, or at least things IN the bible. Con didnt even give a response on what to discuss. It seems to me that pro was expecting a conversation in first round and got nothing. 2nd round the con affirms biblical information through science and philosophy, ie space and ontological argument, which agree with the scriptures, but the problem is that the ontological argument isnt contained in the 66 books, so it had little relevance to the discussion. The topic about space (which is mentioned in scriptures) did not apparently qualify to pro as he dismissed it and said "
Melcharaz avatar
Well and good, but these are effectively outside the bible, i asked that the person im discussing with would explain views and beliefs in or regarding the 66 books of the bible" i can only surmise that he asserted the proof of space as "outside" the bible. And then con spammed an i agree.
My evaluation is that this was a waste of time for both sides, if this was meant to be a discussion there was no effort on either part to actually discuss. For the love of God dont ask me to judge these things in the future
yep, three spaces
Wait, you can actually type no words in and the website still registers it as an argument?
wrong
I cant help you decided to troll someone who wanted to have a discussion, get off your high horse and do something useful with your time.
I can't delete debates once they're finished. Sorry.
Would you mind deleting this debate?
Alrighty
yes delete it
Heck ill ask virtuo to delete it if you want. This was pointless anyways
I can report it if you want. Points dont matter to me. I was hoping for a discussion
then that is a bad vote
I think he was quoting me when i said it was outside the bible.
The topic about space (which is mentioned in scriptures) did not apparently qualify to pro as he dismissed it and said "
Melcharaz avatar
Well and good, but these are effectively outside the bible, i asked that the person im discussing with would explain views and beliefs in or regarding the 66 books of the bible"
i can only surmise that he asserted the proof of space as "outside" the bible. And then con spammed an i agree.
This is outside the Bible?
"The Bible also says that the Earth floats in space on nothing. Consider Job 26:7 which states:”He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”We now know today that yes, the Earth does hang on nothing. It is freely orbiting around the sun. To prove that the Bible has been correct, the ancient Greeks in the Bronze age when the Book of Job was written."
I find it funny that the judge is nonjudgmental, which he wasn't online since he joined.