Biblical faith is not faith without evidence or doubt. It's ok to doubt in the Christian faith.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- Evidence [1]
- Belief [2]
- Faith [3]
- Evidence [1]
- Belief [2]
- Faith [3]
- They are verbatim copies of the Oxford definitions of the words. Not simply my own definitions.
- All these definitions are integrally relevant to the debate.
- The definition you are objecting to (Belief 1.2) is a use of the word that i have heard in countless religious contexts where it is used to mean exactly how the definitions provided describes.
- R1
" This i would request you to provide more on please. A few things. Evident is, if even supported by a large body of evidence, opinion in this case when looking at the universe and everything in it that we know.I realize with what I'm about to say I'm starting with an assumption of the God of the Bible's existence but I am arguing from that pov and trying to justify why this statement should be expanded on and shown to be true.This statement is in direct contradiction to something incredibly important in the Bible that I am confident is true. And not just because the Bible says so.Romans 1:20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
- R2
"This is calling you to the same faith you have in a seat belt. A sort of trust without reservation. (Assuming you've never directly studied car crashes or seat belt mechanics like most) It's the same way you trust your seat belt given the odds of car crashes and the effects on the human body when not wearing one or if it were to simply fail."
- R3
"He had Moses raise the staff before he parted the sea. God asked Abraham to leave his home. God asked Noah to build a boat. Noah said why, God said have faith or in otherwords, trust me. Thats Biblical faith. You're never called on as a Christian to believe without evidence. God specifically says he went out of his way to provide sufficient evidence."
- R4
"This might help. I believe the evidence is overwhelming that God exists, created the Universe. I believe the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus lived, died, rose from the dead, claimed to be and is God, and never spoke inerrantly.I have faith when Jesus said the Old Testament can be trusted, that he's right. As for the New Testament. I think the evidence is overwhelming the gospels we have are English translations of the original 4 gospels written by four eyewitnesses to the events surrounding Christ's ministry, death, resurrection, claims, and accention. Im getting there on evidence for the various letters and other books. But im good to cover through that much. Although each are their own lengthy topics and debates."
- They are verbatim copies of the Oxford definitions of the words. Not simply my own definitions.
- All these definitions are integrally relevant to the debate.
- The definition you are objecting to (Belief 1.2) is a use of the word that i have heard in countless religious contexts where it is used to mean exactly how the definitions provided describes.
- R1
- R2
- R4
- CR1
"- And I would argue that they have no Biblical basis for that stance. They're wrong. At the very least, and I see this kind of assumption multiple times below, the Bible is not 100% one type as you allude to on multiple occasions. The Bible has both types of writing. Metaphor and literal. You can break these out into generally around 8 or 9 types."
- CR2
" 'Evidence is never opinion.'-- agreed.Although the conclusions found from the same set of evidence often are. Although there is an underlying truth to be found. "
- CR3
"so you analyze the evidence, determine likely to be true, and have faith to get in the car. Faith is an unfortunate English translation given the mixed contexts"
- CR4
"lets use a specific example. What i was trying to get at with the God's existence is evident in creation. Granted, much different scope over time. For me, the fine tuning of so many constants (e.g. strength of gravity), the library of info in DNA. The molecular machines in our cells. The big bang. Etc. Are all best explained by intelligent design. Im weighing the evidence found in nature to come to a conclusion of design for all where others weigh and come to the conclusion chance for all."
- CR5
"Im using these as some of the many examples where the Bible supports faith like that in a seat belt and not because God says so or because the Bible says so. "
- CR6
Again, there are no objective facts that indicate these stories are true.-- An eyewitness account isn't even considerable? Not as proof the whole Bible is true. But say are they not proof a man named Jesus lived?
- CR1
The Biblical justification for the young earth ... what parts to read literally.
- CR2
- CR3
- CR4
- CR5
- CR6
- FR1
"'Is Barnabas an apostle as it says in his gospel?'-- I dont know. But define apostle. Someone who followed Jesus around during his earthly ministry? Probably."
- FR2
"yes, eyewitness accounts. Different level of reliability."
" Yes. You're correct. But it was on me to show there exists evidence. "
- FR3
"This would only be true if this was the VERY first call to action for Moses. "
- FR4
" You have faith youve covered all the cases and someone won't crash in an unexpected way causing everyone in the vehicle to lose their seat belts efficacy. "
- FR5
"The only reason that it is considered absurd to take the 6,000 year old universe literally is because a mountain of evidence supports an ancient universe.--Which is why I'm in this camp and would claim the Bible is unclear. Any Christian saying they're 100% sure is reading into the text and adding their interpretation. Genesis tells us (from it's point of view im not arguing this as proof for these points) for sure without need for long debate that or any uncertainty or metaphor.1. The Universe had a beginning.2. God exists3. God exists outside of this universe"
- FR6
" but the seemingly correct conclusion is SO often shown to be wrong. Usually because of new facts which were unknowable to exists. Give me an example of one if you could please it'll help me specify my argument here."
- FR7
"Genesis assumes a non physical entity outside of time and space. "
"You could pick a specific book and we can start there"
Okay two part resolution, meaning pro must support:
1. "Biblical faith is not faith without evidence or doubt."
2. "It's ok to doubt in the Christian faith."
Thankfully con immediately concedes the second the second. While the second is likely intended as a conclusion, with the first as a key premise, it's still very good that not every little thing will be argued for the sake of disagreement.
R1:
Pro builds an opening, using a couple passages of the bible, both in support and opposition to his point (for the opposition he deep dives to show flawed translations).
Con counters with a semantic kritik, focused on the word faith; to which my mind immediately goes to the resolution having the modifier of biblical faith, as opposed to just faith alone (it still affects the confidence interval, it's just not an instant win). He goes on to show faith within the bible (using one of pro's own bits, but with a different translation).
R2:
Pro tackles the unfairness of the kritik (unfavorable definitions, when the debate is obviously a thematic argument against those). Then gets lost in a side discussion. It does get to a seat belt analogy (which con immediately points out is seen working if people care to review the easily accessible evidence).
Con compares biblical evidence to Spider-Man. Con (while not accusing pro of going this far) makes a very good point "Biblical literalism is patently absurd," which combined, undermine efforts to call the bible itself evidence given such things as the age of the earth and such.
R3:
Pro gets into the complexity of the bible. Does conversational replies. Makes the strong start to a point that "God's existence is evident in creation." He does make a cool point that the witness testimony (which con wisely points out are even in modern times known to be unreliable) and such had no way to know any of it would be compiled and shared around the world later.
R4:
More of the same. And yeah, trimming text is a good thing. As a reader, I don't want to accidently re-read too much. ... And yes, I am skimming at this point.
Conclusion:
Biblical faith should not be faith without evidence. /Should not./ Sadly, there is a basic Burden of Proof issue to the assertion, that it needs to be shown that it (at least in general) is not. As a Catholic, I'll say "Right on, Amen brother!" As a voter, to favor the pro side, I need a clear cut reason, outside of my own bias; in the absence of that, and with questions to the reliability of the bible as evidence for biblical faith requires evidence, con is able to take the win.
My big advice for how to improve from here, is to practice writing out your basic case in logical form. A series of clearly labeled premises, leading to a conclusion or two.
Conduct:
This doesn't need to be listed since I am leaving it a tie, but both were stellar!
I would say that there is a fairly large fundamental difference between biblical Judaic faith and contemporary Judeo-Christian faith.
1. Biblical characters would regularly observe miracles. Elijah called fire from the heavens as empirical evidence of the strength of his god. Moses called his plagues and parted the Red Sea, Joseph foretold the famine, and Job saw cities destroyed by fire and brimstone. If I was in the shoes of these individuals or contemporaries living in a city where such blatant miracles occurred, I would obviously believe the words of these prophets. The Old Testament was an excellent time to have faith, because it was anything but blind.
2. In the New Testament, you don't see any gigantic miracles like this. No cities or armies wiped out by the wrath of God. Instead, one man made miraculous healings, turned water into wine, fed the thousands, and walked on water. As far as pure grandeur goes, this is pretty tame compared to the Old Testament. And most of the miracles Jesus performed were small and had no evidence of it occurring after the event. Even so, anyone present when he healed someone, or performed some other miracle, would be pretty convinced that he was magical if not strictly divine. I know I would be in that situation. And yet somehow, there aren't any modern occurrences of priests or prophets performing the miracles at this scale, and definitely nothing that completely flies in the face of science. In other words, modern Christianity is based on blind faith, whereas biblical faith, as depicted, was anything but blind.
I just finished your review of the debate. I appreciate you taking the time so much! Thoughtful and unbiased outside perspective it seemed to me. And you provided me some really fantastic advice. Once I'm able to move my setup and get on the computer, I can do some of this in earnest. The advice at the end of laying it out first in that way, im going to start now, but can easily do in a real way once I switch to my PC. That was fantastic advice. I really do appreciate it. I'm brand new to this and would be foolish not to take the advice of the more experienced when they take time out, that they didn't have to, to provide it. If you ever have advice you'd like to share I only see it as beneficial and please don't hesitate to provide it. Ive got a lot to learn and appreciate the help. Thanks again!
The Democrats and Republicans i can actually work with. It's actually one i really wanted to use but was afraid of the potential rabbit trails if misunderstood. So what I'm trying to say, using your example, would be if we agreed that "loving the policies" which were discussed defines what is a republican or democrat (not an argument for the policies or real world definition). Another way to say it might be. If one hates/disagrees with those policies would then definitionally exclude them from being called which ever party's policies was being outlined. This is not the Scotsman fallacy. I would say using these analogy terms that the Scotsman fallacy arrives in saying in addition to the agreed upon terms which define you as one or the other, I hold to these opinion based ones that are not in agreement between the parties. And since they dont agree with mine, they're not actually that party. It's different.
Kritiks are often done without meaning to, and they're not always invalid or cheap. In your case, you did not cherry-pick the definitions, you included multiple for each word. Still, seeing the work put in, I didn't want to just vote based on a definition without giving proper focus on the exchange (as much as definitions can't be outright dismissed either).
I mean the section that you had written in the debate format outlines you commented on my first debate
Thank you for your thoughtful vote ragnar, I read the section you had written on kritiks, but i perhaps don't fully understand it.
> . I feel like that's like saying don't vote for Trump because of his ____ plan. And you go on to describe the ______ plan of another candidate who says they're Donald Trump.
I think this analogy may have a mistake in listing Trump twice, instead of Trump and "not Trump"
Neatly, I think it was back during McCain vs Obama, there was a series of street interviews where their stances were switched; sadly Democrats hated Democratic policies if they were said to come from a Republican candidate and loved Republican ones when they were said to come from a Democratic candidate, and vice versa.
My pleasure
That was a great discussion. Thanks again for bearing with me.
The library was a great suggestion. I have a laptop. But it's hooked up with my work stuff and with 2 kids and some free time after they're in bed for my wife and I to hang. I just don't have the time to hop on. I'd have time for maybe one debate argument a day, if that, if I waited for good PC time.
Given this and other points raised, ill take the burden to better define terms and target discussions on debates in the future. I can handle a single discussion, but some of these turn into simultaneous discussions of many, major and different aspects of Christian theology.
Please feel free to tag me in any debates you are willing to put up with me on haha. I will be working to refine my style and presentation but that takes time. For now I'd simply expect a slowly evolving version of the style presented. Just trying to be honest and fair with time time I have to work. My kids won't be this young and time dependent forever.
Also, if you see anything that interests you from me, jump in! I've been opting for longer round settings to allow for a round or two of level setting, definition agreement, focusing of specific topic, etc.
Thanks again. It was fun and thought provoking.
well thanks man
Stellar conversation so far. I'm really enjoying it. You've got me thinking deeply and critically. You're presenting your views very rationally and while passionately, not hatefully or with ego. Thank you!
hey, I realized i kind of ignored your question trying to explain.
To specifically answer, Theres two resolves here. WHich will you be arguing?
Up to you. I think i laid better, more specific groundwork of my stance in the opening. (Thanking you for your patience) feel free to bite on which ever part of both (or both) that works for you.
that's kind of the whole premise for wanting to start this. I think the "ultra-right wing conservatives" are wrong. Furthermore, I think they are portraying what's found in the Bible incorrectly and that it's causing major issues. I feel so many of the discussions I see are about a version of Christianity that is not one found in the Bible.
I think it is ok to doubt Christian faith and only those ultra-right wing conservatives will disagree. I am not quite sure how is a faith not a faith without evidence nor doubt. An obscure belief without any evidence for nor against it is still faith, duh. I want Pro to solve this.
Woops lol I guess I'm doing this
Biblical faith is not faith without evidence or doubt. This is in contrast to the commonly held assumption i run into that Christian faith is blind belief without evidence.
It's ok to doubt in the Christian faith.
There are MANY who berate and judge and chastise for having doubts. This is not biblical.
It's this kind of two fold point I was looking to debate. I figured a legalistic Christian who's more worried about checking the boxes of religion than following Jesus. And it's a view which I think falsely portrays Christianity and pushes people from Jesus.
I wanted to engage on this topic. If im wrong, I'd like to know.
Theres two resolves here. WHich will you be arguing?