Instigator / Pro

biblical worldview


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

Winner & statistics

After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Contender / Con

Arguments are open, just pertain it to what worldview is the best explanation of real truth, real moral right and wrong with the best standard

Round 1
Pro bible
1.       With many talking about what is right and wrong politically, givenfraud, incitement, riot, deceit, brutality, murder, corruption, etc. many donot consider why such things are wrong in the first place. They merely take itfor granted without adequate justification.  Often reasons posited beg thequestion and are arbitrarily based.  If based on arbitrary measures suchwould be irrational. 
 2.       Forexample, if one asserts it is wrong to commit fraud because that is a form oflying, we could easily ask why is lying wrong? A response such as we shouldrespect others could be given, but then we can in return ask, why should werespect others and what form should that take?  If one says because youwouldn’t like it if others did such disrespectful behavior, we could equallyask, perhaps not, but why is that wrong?  If one says because withoutcooperation, people couldn’t survive, one could easily respond why is it rightto survive in the first place as a species, or who determines what part of thespecies is best to survive or the best way to survive and so forth? If onesays, what is best for the majority, we could equally ask, which majority doyou have in view, of the past, present or future, the majority in the U.S or inChina, in Vegas or NY and why is it right to violate what the majority wantsand when, or who defines “best” and to what extent? Anything one gives would becompletely arbitrary in and of itself, which makes none of it objectively rightunless there is an adequate standard in which all these moral principlesmentioned above are grounded.  That is, links on the chain of reasons mustbe terminated at some adequate beginning point to justify the contingentreasons on the rest of the chain.
3.       Withoutan adequate standard, which is a standard with sufficient potential to explainthe ontological existence of and reliability of any potential truth, includingmoral truths of a true ultimate right and wrong, there could be no trueobjective right and wrong.  All professed morals would be arbitrary,relative, subjective and preferential without an adequate standard.  
4.       Additionally,without an adequate standard for truth, we would simply not be able to knowanything for certain, making everything irrational.  How could we knowscience if we don’t presuppose laws of logic, math, nature, morality anduniformity, and reliability of senses and memory?  But how do we accountfor such preconditions for intelligibility and their reliability without thembeing rooted in some adequate terminate uncaused standard in the first place,without begging the question or using circular reasoning? To prove laws oflogic truly exist and know their origins and reliability, you must assume lawsof logic exist and are reliable in the first place, which begs the question;but how could we know they are valid since all experiments and experiences webase knowledge to what we think we know presupposes logic is reliable so thatwe are correctly and accurately evaluating the results we think we know that allegedlyprove the laws of logic work in the first place?    
 5.       Everybodyhas a worldview that has some form of standard for what they deem truth andright and wrong, but not all worldviews are equal and not all worldviews areadequate; that is they don’t all end in an adequate standard, but often aninadequate standard.  Every reason, idea, thing is rooted back tosomething prior, but that is contingent (dependent) on something prior;infinite regress would be a contradiction, and the whole chain of reasons wouldremain unproven, not grounded in anything adequate, so if that terminate pointwe stop at as our ultimate ground, to use that contingent ultimate standard toprove it would be begging the question; nothing could be proven in the line ofits chain of reasons, all contingent links linked to a standard itself that iscontingent.  You would have to use a circle to prove your rationale, butthe circle would be a viscous one.  At some point you must circle,otherwise you have an infinite regress problem, but the only circle that isn’tviscous but necessary is when you circle at a non-contingent reality. That is until you get to something adequate, non-contingent, at that point. Butsomething non-contingent for our reality would have to comprehensively be non-contingentfor the sum of all reality, thus by default would have to be eternal, infinite,non-contingent, immutable, infallible, creator of all things, omnipotent,personal, self-revealing, and maximally moral. Anything short of that would becontingent.  Only monotheism provides this, particularly biblicalmonotheism since God has all the necessary qualities both doctrinally andpractically, while on Judaism, there is only 8 of the 10 qualities and on Islamonly 6 of the 10 qualities practically speaking.  On pantheism, theuniverse is one with the divine, but the universe is finite, contingent,temporary, amoral, unconscious, changing, hence any deity linked to it wouldhave like defects, which means it couldn’t be adequate, lacking the qualitiesof such. On polytheism, the gods/goddesses collectively or individually areoften finite, temporary, limited, contingent, changing, often immoral, hencecan’t qualify, on deism God doesn’t interfere, so we know nothing of hisqualities, by default is not self-revealing, thus can’t constitute a adequatestandard.  If the adequate standard doesn’t reveal truth, we could neverknow what it knows without begging the question, making objective knowledgeimpossible. Secularism only roots to people, the universe or nature, allfinite, contingent, temporary, changing, often fallible, humans or immoral and amoralat times, etc. thus no secular ideologies (atheism, agnosticism, materialism,naturalism,  socialism, feminism, scientism, etc.)could have  one
6.       Anadequate stand must be able to explain the origin or reality and reliability ofpresuppositions we take for granted on which we base knowledge, includingobjective moral knowledge of a true right and wrong, as well as laws of logic,math, nature, uniformity, reliability of senses and memory, freedom, purpose,human dignity, meaning and value, etc.  All secular worldview cannot dothis and often don’t even concede such a need.  eg.  on materialism, there can’t be an objective right andwrong, since there is no standard for it, since the universe and all of itscontents, including humans who hold these moral views are merely derived fromparticles, matter, energy and materials, thus material matter is the sum of allwe are by a process of material change, allowing for no ultimate adequatestandard, but an invented, contrived morality by materially derived moist robotcreatures’ illusory views on that materialistic worldview. Naturalism andscientism suffer the same type of defects.  No-God worldview presupposes a randomlyproduced universe, which hardly yields any adequate standard or cause for anadequate standard of right and wrong, or epistemological origins and itsreliability.  Evolutionism presupposes a universe in flux beginningrandomly and emerging into higher states of order to eventually produce moralcreatures; however, this violates causality and does not provide a standard foranything, given a changing standard is an inadequate ground, since it relies onthings and ideas in flux that need verification of truth themselves tolegitimately verify them.   Upon examination, these worldviews areself-refuting, eg. empiricism claims only what is observable can be known.  However, the basicphilosophy itself can’t be verified by such a process ofempiricism (observation, experimentation), thus is self-refuting.    
7.       Falsepseudo-religious worldviews also fail to make the grade as well for variousreasons when we examine the particulars of those religious worldviews.  Forexample, in religions pertaining to pantheism, there are beliefs that realityis an illusion, or that an impersonal force rather than a personal God exists,while on polytheism, there are multiple gods/goddesses that due to theirdifferent natures, origins, manners, ways are not an adequate standard, whichmust be singular and terminate.  On deism, there is no revealed revelationto know what is truly from this standard in the first place. On some forms ofmonotheism, there are doctrines are the standard being completely transcendentand non- relational, making it impossible that those standards in him could berealized in us, or that the revelation is not sufficiently complete, etc.  
8.       Anadequate standard must be a self-attesting, terminate, eternal, non-contingent,conscious, immaterial, invariant, sufficient in power, creativity, wisdomor knowledge, presence to have or emerge effects that will allow thepresuppositions on which we base knowledge of anything, including moralknowledge. The reason it must be self-attesting is because the links on thechain all have contingency on something prior that must be true to validatethem, but if the chain has no culmination or ultimate proper ending, it will goon into infinitum without any links on it being ultimately verified, sincethere is no ultimate reason for all being true in the first place.  Thereason it must be eternal is because something in time is temporary, thuscontingent and as stated earlier contingent reality depends on something beyonditself for its existence, reality or truth.   If the standard is notconscious, it can’t realize anything to be the standard, not knowing it is thestandard, nor having any desire for such, nor ability to reveal itself to us assuch, making it moot as such.  Without enough power and wisdom, it wouldnot have the ability to originate anything, since effect can’t be greater thancause.  It it is material, it would be physical, thus subject to physicsand within time, making it temporal and contingent, thus inadequate.  Aneternal conscious being that has moral qualities able to make them be realizedby definition must be personal, so an adequate standard must be personal. It must also be revealing so we can know what it is and what it wants. The revelation must be consistent with the above traits and manifest no defectsand be able to explain reality, the ontological existence and reliability ofthe preconditions of intelligibility on which we base knowledge and the moral realities, including the aforementioned ones mentioned in point 1, inwhich we debate and argue political realities.  
9.       Whenproperly analyzed, only the biblical God and his revelation provides this adequate standard, as it is revealed, perfect, self-attesting,sufficiently powerful, creative, knowledgeable, wise, moral (holy orrighteous), who creates us with abilities to know truth and moral truth, sincewe are attested to be created by God and in his image, unique from all otherforms of life, making us discernible creatures and since the universe wascreated by God, the universe would be orderly  and logical given God’sorderly and logical nature, described as eternal, infinite, immutable, non-contingent,infallible, creator of all things, all powerful, personal, self-revealing, allmoral.  (Gen 1:1; Col 1:16-17; 2 Tim 3:16;Psalms 11:7; 12:6-7; 139:7-8; Exo 3:14; 1 Chron 29:11;John 17:3; Heb13:8; Psa 147:5; Deut 33:27).
10.   As the only adequate standard, the biblical worldview makes itclear there is an objective right and wrong and we can know it via conscience,the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, given us an adequate foundation for anymoral principles we deliberate, but it also makes it clear that humans createdin the image of God are accountable for keeping these moral principles, andfailure to do so perfectly leads to death (spiritual, physical and eternal),thus the need for a Savior, since all of us have fallen into sin and sin oftenand regularly, going amuck of the moral principles we sometimes profess.  Jesus came as the messiah to fulfill the OT law and satisfy God’sjustice in paying for our sins (moral offences in heart and deed), so wewouldn’t have to if we put our faith in him alone as our personal Lord andSavior, irrespective of our political views, background religion and ethnicity.Only in Christ is perfect holiness, righteousness and morality, and we inherithis perfect righteousness when we receive him as a free gift given by God’sgrace for our salivation and remission of sin.  “For the wages of sin isdeath, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ out Lord.” 

My apologies, I was under the assumption that you were denouncing the biblical worldview and that I was highlighting it.
Please save your statement and resubmit your debate. I forfeit. Again, my apologies.
Round 2
Round 3