I lost the last debate we had due to the voter "scratching his head" not understanding the ideas clashing or logic involved in the debate.
I will not let that happen again, therefore I will explain the technical details at the beginning of the debate.
I will explain why it is superior in every way to star wars technology. That will take a lot of space.
You made me change the resolution from "eve can defeat star wars" to "star wars could defeat eve". That is a super impactful change. Not only do I have to show why EVE is superior, but also why star wars cannot defeat it. It is for that reason that I cannot also let you get the first word. I also wrote in the description that we talk about eveS, so as to not grant you the victory on mere chance.
Regardless, you have nothing to worry about. You won the last debate we had, even if the victory was a bit suspicious to say the least.
You had already promised to accept the debate, and given the terms:
"Change it to "An entire starwars army could defeat Eve" and then change your position to Con and you've got yourself a debate."
I realized that unless I explained what EVE is, I will have an inherent disadvantage since most people intuitively know what star wars is.
But I will not make any argument in the first round.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"""
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]
"""
Science does not deny a resurrection, it just says: "All things being equal, people do not survive death". God is clearly a factor in the resurrection of Jesus - therefore, science could not predict the event as God is not possible to study. Does the Bible say that "God moved the atoms around" or "it was so"? If the former is true, then the Bible is not translated correctly. If the latter is true, science can explain the events as no explanation of the PROCESS is offered.
Note that science and genesis often agree on which parts of the universe was created first:
-- Energy and the universe popped out of nowhere
-- 300'000 years after the big bang, photons became visible (not absorbed instantly)
-- Suddenly the inflation stopped and the expansion slowed down (a necessary even for life to exist)
-- Land MOVED into position, into one big chunk
-- There is a "vault" which separates water from clouds (also water)
-- The materials of life were slowly built up by chemical evolution, and then suddenly life started to exist (with no explanation why)
-- Life started in the sea
-- Plants came before land animals, and humans were created lastly
If that list is not evidenced that the Bible can allow science to explain the processes and the accurate age, then NO ancient text can allow science to be valid.
Well, being Christian was never a scientific idea, not even in the beginning. Christians claimed that miracles happened in addition to normal scientific events. They never rejected science. They trusted their senses and their reasonings to be a good source to understand the teachings of Jesus.
"But for your debate, you made the Bible the authority on what constitutes correct Christian belief."
Yes indeed, and I used the Bible to empower science. Obviously one cannot ignore science today, just like one could not ignore the old testament in Jesus'es time.
You say that the Christian faith is worthless unless science is discarded. I am unable to tell if you are kidding or not, since literally everything we do in our lives is science: how to cook food, how to read and talk, what is a tree vs what is a cat - etc. You are quoting Paul. But he said that unless the RESSURECTION was true then we are the people most to be pitied. I never denied the resurrection, I claimed that science explains the scientific age of the earth more accurately than genesis, and I used the Bible to prove it.
I lost the last debate we had due to the voter "scratching his head" not understanding the ideas clashing or logic involved in the debate.
I will not let that happen again, therefore I will explain the technical details at the beginning of the debate.
I will explain why it is superior in every way to star wars technology. That will take a lot of space.
You made me change the resolution from "eve can defeat star wars" to "star wars could defeat eve". That is a super impactful change. Not only do I have to show why EVE is superior, but also why star wars cannot defeat it. It is for that reason that I cannot also let you get the first word. I also wrote in the description that we talk about eveS, so as to not grant you the victory on mere chance.
Regardless, you have nothing to worry about. You won the last debate we had, even if the victory was a bit suspicious to say the least.
You had already promised to accept the debate, and given the terms:
"Change it to "An entire starwars army could defeat Eve" and then change your position to Con and you've got yourself a debate."
I realized that unless I explained what EVE is, I will have an inherent disadvantage since most people intuitively know what star wars is.
But I will not make any argument in the first round.
You were ready to accept the debate before I said that I would waive.
I am sorry, but I cannot.
ok.
[10]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbfYPyITQ-7l4upoX8nvctg
SOURCES FOR ROUND 3:
[1]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/brain/
[2]: https://www.lexico.com/definition/knowledge
[3]: https://www.lexico.com/definition/information
[4]: https://www.lexico.com/definition/experience
[5]: https://human-memory.net/memory-storage/
[6]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor
[7]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/form-philosophy
[8]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concept
[9]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/08/science-of-sleep/
bumb
bumb
bumb
bumb
bumb
I will waive first round.
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.
"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.
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?
" 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.
"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.
I understand. You are saying that Abraham and Job were Christians.
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.
Are you claiming that Abraham and Moses never came to heaven?
No, I am not a universalist.
Do you believe that only Christians come to heaven? Christian = follower of Christ.
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?
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?
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
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
Compelling evidence? Well, evidence exists, but I cannot guarantee you that it will be compelling in your eyes.
"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.
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.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/
I am sorry, but I should not interpret the text. That would be wrong according to Peter.
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.
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
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.
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.
"""
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
Science does not deny a resurrection, it just says: "All things being equal, people do not survive death". God is clearly a factor in the resurrection of Jesus - therefore, science could not predict the event as God is not possible to study. Does the Bible say that "God moved the atoms around" or "it was so"? If the former is true, then the Bible is not translated correctly. If the latter is true, science can explain the events as no explanation of the PROCESS is offered.
Note that science and genesis often agree on which parts of the universe was created first:
-- Energy and the universe popped out of nowhere
-- 300'000 years after the big bang, photons became visible (not absorbed instantly)
-- Suddenly the inflation stopped and the expansion slowed down (a necessary even for life to exist)
-- Land MOVED into position, into one big chunk
-- There is a "vault" which separates water from clouds (also water)
-- The materials of life were slowly built up by chemical evolution, and then suddenly life started to exist (with no explanation why)
-- Life started in the sea
-- Plants came before land animals, and humans were created lastly
If that list is not evidenced that the Bible can allow science to explain the processes and the accurate age, then NO ancient text can allow science to be valid.
Well, being Christian was never a scientific idea, not even in the beginning. Christians claimed that miracles happened in addition to normal scientific events. They never rejected science. They trusted their senses and their reasonings to be a good source to understand the teachings of Jesus.
"But for your debate, you made the Bible the authority on what constitutes correct Christian belief."
Yes indeed, and I used the Bible to empower science. Obviously one cannot ignore science today, just like one could not ignore the old testament in Jesus'es time.
You say that the Christian faith is worthless unless science is discarded. I am unable to tell if you are kidding or not, since literally everything we do in our lives is science: how to cook food, how to read and talk, what is a tree vs what is a cat - etc. You are quoting Paul. But he said that unless the RESSURECTION was true then we are the people most to be pitied. I never denied the resurrection, I claimed that science explains the scientific age of the earth more accurately than genesis, and I used the Bible to prove it.
"What is quantum science"
A good starting point for a debate, isn't it XD
I would
...
Against any other instigator
You must surely have an A up your sleeve
1. If Santa Claus existed then magic presents would appear on Christmas
2. Scientifically, what 1 claims is proven incorrect
3. Point 1 is false
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhsss!!!!
Don's say this on the internet - China is watching us.
They can send the nukes before the nukes are even close to the US.
Thanks
Obviously one cannot have a battle if one side can simply control the movements of the other side or if star wars win because "the force wants it so".
You seem to be an expert on these kinds of matters.
Would you like to vote? Maybe even give me some tips on how to win this kind of debate?
Vote?
I might lose, I might win. Either way, my case will be right. Funny how you found no better way to rebuke my argument than use my other argument.
When your opponent can find no better way to defeat your argument than using your own words - that is a sign that your grasp of the concept is superb.