Instigator / Con
14
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Topic
#2762

Christians should believe in young-earth creationism.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Benjamin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
6
1504
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description

Pro will necesarilly have the burden of proof. Pro must prove that christians should believe in young earth creationism rather than other theories.

ASSUMPTIONS:
1. Christianity is the correct religion
2. Human senses are accurate sources of information
3. Human reasoning is able to understand the world

-->
@PGA2.0

I also hope he's alright.

-->
@Barney
@Tradesecret
@Benjamin

I want to say that I find it strange that TradeSecret has not been online for 12 days. Since I have noticed his comments on many a thread, I hope that he is okay.

-->
@Benjamin

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16)

"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet. 1:20-21)

"Scripture" is used to refer to the written Word. The words themselves are from God. He used human authors, including their unique personalities, but the words are His. That's why we call it God's Word. Infallible means the Bible is absolutely trustworthy and there are no errors.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Please show me where in the Bible God makes such a claim: that every word is written directly by him.

Also, what does "infallible" mean? I mean, one and the same word must be part of one specific meaning, so extracting "science" from the Bible requires you to ignore the other aspects, like the religious one.

-->
@Benjamin

It means I believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible. It is not inaccurate as your last argument of this debate stated. It is authoritative because God is the author of every word, though He used humans as the means of recording those words. Thus the authority of the Bible is not from man but from God. That includes the account of Genesis and every other record of events that seem to disagree with our modern "science." It also means that if I can't reconcile the sovereignty of God with the responsibility of man in a way that satisfies my tiny human brain, I don't just reject it. I go to the text to determine what it says is true about reality.

But if you don't subject yourself to the authority of the Bible,and you are willing to let science be your ultimate authority in such a clear issue as Genesis, then there is no reason for making a biblical argument for other difficult topics.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

"your ULTIMATE authority"

What does that even mean? If science claimed that Jesus is not Lord of course I would not believe in such a claim. However, I do not need to accept any specific claim of theology just because Jesus is my saviour.

-->
@Benjamin

I believe that the Bible clearly teaches God is sovereign over all things, including salvation. Yet we are also held accountable for our sins. You have already claimed the Bible is not your ULTIMATE authority. And I will not defend this claim by appealing to another authority as higher than the Bible, which is my ultimate authority.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

That makes no sense.

If God is not giving us free will then why bother letting us choose in this life. Why not create us in heaven already?

-->
@Benjamin

"Job was a heathen in the sense that he was not a jew and not a follower of Christ."

Jews could either be considered descendents of Shem (Semites), or descendants of Abraham depending on what approach you take. If that's the case, then Noah was also a "heathen" according to how you are defining it since he was a descendent of neither one. Whatever definitions you use, it is only people with true faith in God who will be saved.

And I believe Scripture teaches the Reformed position that no sinner will ever choose to seek after God in obedience unless they are first regenerated by the Holy Spirit. There is no one who, in and of themselves, decides to seek after God. Romans 3:10-12 emphasizes that point. The elect, or all who will be in heaven, are those God chose before the foundation of the world to be named in the book of life.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

" how do you deal with this text below?"

Easily - I accept what is written. The reason that "heathens" go to hell is not that they don't go to a church, after all, many factors could influence that, like country and political position. But they go to hell because they refuse to seek God with the little knowledge they have. I cannot pressure enough on how important it is that we do not make generalisations. Job was a heathen in the sense that he was not a jew and not a follower of Christ.

"he was one of God's elect as are all Christians"

Are you suggesting God forces some people to hell and some to heaven. If God elected me and I can't resist then that is the only logical conclusion.

-->
@Benjamin

If you want to be technical, no he wasn't a "Christian" in the sense that he had a full revelation of Jesus Christ. But he was one of God's elect as are all Christians. So I should clarify, when you say "non-Christians" are you referring to God's elect prior to the establishment of the church (e.g. Abraham)? Or are you referring to people who don't have saving faith in God?

And if God saves everyone except the people who choose not to seek after Him, how do you deal with this text below?

“There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one" (Rom. 3:10-12).

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

"God is not obligated to save anyone."

Interesting. I thought he has made a lot of obligations for himself back in the day - when he constantly promised to save humanity.

Of course, humanity will not all accept that, but he HAS saved everyone.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

I understand. You are saying that Abraham and Job were Christians.

-->
@Benjamin

Theology is just a word referring to the study of God or knowledge about God. To say Job didn't know anything about theology is to say Job knew nothing about God, which is obviously not the case.

But only those who have true and saving faith will go to heaven. That's how God has operated from the Fall in Genesis to Judgment Day in Revelation. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. "For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness'" (Rom. 4:3). If a person does not have saving faith, they are not a Christian, and they are still in their sins. Every person is guilty of sin, and God is not obligated to save anyone.

But I have to wonder then, if you believe non-Christians will be in heaven, do you believe we are only saved through faith alone? How does a non-Christian who does not have faith in Christ end up in heaven?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Yes, Job DID. That's my point. Job knew nothing of theology, he had only heard rumors about God. Therefore, God could save him. That is evidence that all people, even where there is no church, can still be saved. God doesn't force anybody to hell without them having a choice. Why would God allow people to sin and go to hell and then not allow them to repent? Jesus is the only way to salvation yes, but Jesus died for future people so I don't see why he could not die for some non-christians as well.

My claim:
Jesus died for everyone. All people will come to heaven, except those that chose themselves not to seek God rather than seeking him.

-->
@Benjamin

Did Job have faith in God?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Are you claiming that Abraham and Moses never came to heaven?

-->
@Benjamin

I would say it is more biblically accurate to define a Christian as someone with true and saving faith in Christ for salvation. But yes, only Christians go to heaven.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

No, I am not a universalist.

Do you believe that only Christians come to heaven? Christian = follower of Christ.

-->
@Benjamin

To put what the Bible says about who will go to heaven in very simple terms, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom. 10:9).

So I don't believe that only Lutherans or Baptists will go to heaven. But if my "sect" contains people who have faith in Jesus, and excludes all who do not have faith, then you are absolutely right. That's not out of arrogance, it's out of trust that Jesus meant what He said. But you continue refusing to make any comment on what you believe, which is concerning to say the least. Are you a universalist? Who do you think goes to heaven and why?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

X means heaven

Here are the options:
-- Everyone goes to X
-- Nobody goes to X
-- Everyone gets a choice to go to X
-- Some people get a choice to go to X, while others do not

Which view do you hold?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

I have a better proposal: everyone goes to hell since everyone has an imperfect understanding of theology. Except you and your specific sect of course.

Do you see what I did?

-->
@Benjamin

Do you believe that everyone who ever existed will go to heaven (universalism)?

If not, what is the reason some people go to heaven and some people go to hell?

If so, then you are not a Christian.

“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Def func Render (init1, arg2, arg3):
inti1.set(35)
for (x=1; x < 10; x++;):
init1.set(init1+1)
print(init1, visuals(type:exterior).show());
if (init1.crash):
terminate();
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

This is evidence for why God exists XD

-->
@Theweakeredge

Compelling evidence? Well, evidence exists, but I cannot guarantee you that it will be compelling in your eyes.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

"There is an objectively right and wrong answer. And how we answer that question determines whether or not we are truly Christians."

Again, there is surely a "correct" answer - one that is historically accurate. But it's undeniable that the authority of the new testament comes from the people that wrote the books, not God. What I mean by that is that even non-Christians must accept the historical record as authentical. I do not understand how you get your dichotomy of right vs wrong interpretation - but your claim that "correct" theology is necessary for salvation is just ridiculous. Think about all sects that have ever existed - all of them have different theology. If your claim is correct then only a single sect will come to heaven, completely destroying the universal message of Jesus.

-->
@Theweakeredge

But the whole basis of your paper is that you are evaluating historical documents as a philosopher while ignoring them as a historian (I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be "an historian" but that just feels wrong!). I'm not a historian, but anyone who is will tell you those questions are critical to ask when approaching historical texts.

And we agree then that self-creation is absurd. But then basically you're saying you have no idea where the "stuff" that went bang came from? Or whether it was eternal or created by something eternal?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

First of all, it isn't the credibility of the historians we are bringing into question, but the credibility of the people trying to use their work as proof of Jesus. They clearly do not understand, or simply did not read their work fully. Next, nothing can be self-created, that is contradictory - there is no self to create yourself before you existed. Nothing can create itself. Something eternal, beyond energy nothing has been demonstrated to be eternal. The current known universe was caused by the big bang, which, can happen spontanously; however, the state or action that happened before that is not known scientifically. However, it should be considered that before the big bang time did not exist, therefore the laws of causal reaction were not in affect.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Skimmed your paper. So how much credibility do you believe the works of those historians have? Specifically, how accurate do you think their writings are in describing the people, places, and events they recorded? And do you believe that we have accurate records today of the actual words they wrote?

Regarding truth, I assume then that you believe things actually and objectively exist. Now this idea is not original to me in any way, but would you agree anything that exists must be self-created, eternal, or created by something eternal?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Actually, I posted a forum called "The Jesus claim" with my old paper, lol, and yes - yes I do. Not objective morality, get that straight, just that facts can be objective... well.. as close to objective as we can verify.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Yet you fail to substantiate your claim of how easy it is to debunk those historical records. But do you even believe in objective truth?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Not quite, anybody could debunk that page with basic research and reasoning. Furthermore, you keep on asserting that to be the truth, I have yet to see compelling evidence ESPECIALLY of the Judeo Christian god

-->
@Theweakeredge

You must be a prodigy if, as a middle schooler, you were debunking widely accepted historical records. But you can't debunk the fact that God will judge the world for every evil act ever committed. I hope you realize that before it's too late...

-->
@Benjamin

No, I believe there is such a thing as objective truth. We do our best to interpret our physical universe using the scientific method. We also do our best to interpret the inspired Word of God using sound hermeneutics. The difference is that God has promised to help us with understanding His written revelation. We have no such promise in interpreting the universe.

But the one thing that Christians should have absolute trust and knowledge of is the biblical testimony of the gospel. Which is why I was asking you to articulate how you believe a person is saved. If you don't want to answer, that's fine. But I would highly suggest you consider that question, as well as why you can trust your answer. There is an objectively right and wrong answer. And how we answer that question determines whether or not we are truly Christians.

-->
@Benjamin

god, that was a throwback! I debunked that page as a middle schooler, lmao

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

So you accept that theology is personal?

Well, science isn't.

That's why we should trust science with regards to scientific matters. Genesis 1-2 is not at all resembling of the authority of the New Testament, neither theologically, scientifically nor general readability. Therefore, one does not need to reject the big bang theory just because one belives in the Ressurection.

-->
@Theweakeredge

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/

-->
@Benjamin

So you can't explain what the gospel is? It's not a trick question. I genuinely want to hear
- from one professing Christian to another - what you believe the gospel is.

-->
@Benjamin

Find three verifible historic sources that support that claim. Furthermore that those sources are covering people who would actually "know" jesus, as most of the writings of the apostles are from more than 60 years after his death. That is not a valid argument buckuroo.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

I am sorry, but I should not interpret the text. That would be wrong according to Peter.

-->
@Benjamin

Benjamin, this may seem off topic but could you do something? Could you explain what the gospel is as specifically as you can?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Science.

Even if the Bible is infallible, our interpretation is.

We know that the universe is rationally constructed by God, and science is much easier to do than theology.

Basically, even for a Christian the "worse" source of science is better, simply because it's not divided into trillions of small sects that all base their ridiculous beliefs on the infallibility of the Bible.

-->
@Benjamin

But then we're still left with the question, what is your ULTIMATE authority? Science - as your argument stated - or the text of the Bible?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Yes, I do think it is true.

Therefore, I will not make a personal interpretation and believe that the universe was formed in 6 x 24 hours

-->
@Benjamin

"However, you know that real people wrote the book, and they SAW Jesus with their own eyes. If seeing a person is not scientific evidence for their existence then I do not know what is."

I think you have a faulty definition of science. If I told you that I saw someone drop an apple and it floated into the sky rather than falling to the ground, would you believe me? Science is a methodology involving that which is observable, measurable, and repeatable. Eyewitness testimony is a form of evidence, but it is not SCIENTIFIC.

And the Bible is authoritative simply because it is. It is objectively true regardless of what anyone thinks of it. It is divine in origin and God does not lie. It bears the authority of God because God is ultimately the author, even when humans wrote down the words.

Do you believe the passage below is true?
(2 Peter 1:20-21)
"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

-->
@Theweakeredge

I would not be so, except millions throughout the years have consciously refused to retract their faith in this "Jesus", even when killed for not doing so. Because they claimed to have met and served this "Jesus". If that doesn't make any difference then yeah, the source is only as accurate as the overwhelming archaeological evidence supporting it, and the massive amounts of fact-checking such a new religion would be suspect to from the Jews in Israel - who often persecuted the Christians and tried to debunk their claims.

-->
@Benjamin

Anecdotal evidence from a fourth hand source, with no verification to its claims? Must be accurate.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

First of all, why is the Bible an authority? A random fictional book would never have any authority, so you aren't basing its an authority on its own claims. However, you know that real people wrote the book, and they SAW Jesus with their own eyes. If seeing a person is not scientific evidence for their existence then I do not know what is. This is my point: the Bible has authority BECAUSE it is based upon the human experience. We would never trust the words of God unless we already believed that the human writing the book were real witnesses.

Are you suggesting we just believe some random book with no evidence? Of course not, you have evidence supporting your belief in it.

-->
@Benjamin

From the same exact source:

"Is it a problem that I don’t have a scientific defense of how a person could be raised from the dead? I don’t think so. Each of us believes many things that are not grounded in science"

If science is the ultimate authority as you are claiming, then you have no defense of the resurrection since science cannot confirm the claim of the resurrection. Using the scientific method, every time we observe a human die, they stay dead. You have to have an authority that is higher than science to allow for belief in the resurrection. In this case, it is the Bible. So what is your ULTIMATE authority to determine what is true, science or the Bible?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

"""
Scientists are taught to evaluate data. “Being sceptical” might mean that extraordinary claims need impressive evidence to back them up. That’s reasonable. But if it’s shorthand for “no matter what the evidence, I won’t believe it!”, then this is a disposition based on a prior commitment. While a unique historical event isn’t subject to scientific reproducibility, an open-minded person will find impressive historical evidence consistent with the Resurrection.[1]
"""

https://biologos.org/articles/can-a-scientist-believe-in-the-resurrection-part-1/#on-what-basis-would-a-scientist-accept-the-resurrection