An intellectual competition! Atheism vs Christianity! Which is more logical? ROUND #3?

In short, An atheist won round 2 and now the Christians have to defend themselves against him or they will lose the competition/debate.

The winner of Round 1 (defending Christianity) stated.

"I will give it a shot but I don't claim to be an expert.

"I have seen, over the years, that when atheists want evidence, they really want God to be proven with science, which it seems is the base for everything they believe. However, what most atheists don't realize is that if God is indeed real, then He cannot be "proven" with science. If God is real, it means He created science. He is infinitely above science. That would be almost the equivalent of trying to prove that the earth rotates because you can spin a ball. I believe God created the world and then gave us science to understand it - not to prove His existence. Science can give evidence, though. It can give evidence of the existence of God, and it can give evidence that He doesn't exist. It all depends on your interpretation of the evidence. But, so far, it hasn't proven whether or not He exists.

There are a lot of things, however, that point to the existence of God. For example, there are a lot of prophecies in the Bible that have come true. In Daniel 9:24-27, Daniel the prophet predicted that Jesus would come as Israel's promised savior and prince 483 years after the persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. Well, hundreds of years later, Jesus did come and claimed to be all that Daniel had prophesied. There is historical documentation - writings - that speak of a man named Jesus by philosophers who lived during the time Jesus did - people who were not mentioned in the Bible. They did not all say He was the Son of God, some didn't believe that - but they all spoke of His existence. That is only one of the many predictions that people in the Bible have correctly made. Others have yet to come true, but may happen soon.

The Bible also has historical accuracy. In fact, Dr. Nelson Glueck, who is probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, said,

"archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

And, despite what others may say, the Bible does have scientific accuracy, as well. They are not stated in technical terms or scientifically, by they are there. A few of them are:

Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)

Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)

Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)

Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)

Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)

Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)

Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)

Gravitational field (Job 26:7)

The Bible also has a remarkable structure. Even though it was written over a period of 2,000 years by 40 or more men and is a collection of 66 books, it is clearly one book with perfect unity and consistency throughout the entire thing."

The Bible points to the existence of God. That is what it is about, and if the Bible is not true, which would be eery given everything it has been right about, then neither is God. But if it is wrong, then God is probably not real. The existence of God relies upon the accuracy of the Bible, which, I believe, can be seen through the modern world."

The winner of Round 2 (Defending Atheism) responded with:

"How did they ever predict a "vast number of stars"!? They must have have been very good with science to figure that out.

If it is so historically accurate then explain all of these: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/j… and these http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Cont…"

He basically states "The Bible has contradictions which destroy Christian credibility" (but this is only my interpretation of his statement, not his actual words)

Discredit the above information with other PROVABLE information or give PROVABLE information that makes the above information (against Christianity) seem unimportant or irrelevant to the subject.

Winner Criteria:

1. Do they state their stance

2. Do they give evidence

3. Is their evidence elaborate

4. Is their evidence accurate

5. Is their evidence understandable

6. Could someone else not say the exact same thing but with a different stance and sound credible?

(Example of Violation of Criteria 6)

Atheist: God doesn't exist because there is no proof of his existence

Christian: God does exist because there is no proof of his non-existence.

Update:

You don't have to comment atheists. You're in the lead. Do whatever you want though......IDK

19 Answers

Relevance
  • Lily
    Lv 4
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Sure there is going to be contradictions here and there. Like the first guy said, It was written by a lot of different people over a long period of time.

    As a Christian, I can look out the door and see Proof of God. Even scientists think that there is an outside source that put all the big bang and evolution in motion.

    How could everything have fallen together so perfectly if it weren't for some God? How could magnets work? How could animals and plants fit so well together. Photosythesis is to complex to complex, are you telling me it just happenned so we could stay alive?

    Proof of God is everywhere you just have to look.

    Source(s): Exposing atheism: http://www.tencommandments.org/heathens.shtml Jesus loves you, whether you believe in him not.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    One question that has to be asked - was the "prediction" of Jesus real or did some one read the text and say "guys have we got a load of suckers here and can make a mint off them" and "create" their own Jesus. The same goes for all of the "prophecies". Are they real or picked up by hucksters looking to cash in. The "prediction" of the destruction of the temple was written about 20 years after it happened.

    As far as the sciences, the Sumerian tablets which pre-date the bible by 2000 years or more had all of that information and much more. They even knew about all 9 planets, some of which we only discovered in the last 2 centuries.

    As far as the bible leading to "amazing discoveries" I have heard that from many people and no one has yet to show me anything of that nature, they just make those sweeping statements. A few people have made some attempts at it but what they have given as "discoveries" were oriented toward 6 year olds at Jesus camp, not people with functional braincells.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    (diest here, but I don't believe in god and I believe in science)

    The stars were created, supposedly, within the same week as humans. How is this possible when humans are only (roughly) 6,000 years old and the farthest star which we still receive light from is over 1,000,000 years old? Is it possible that God expanded time just for the creation of universe? Not likely.

    Adam and Eve were supposedly the first man and woman on planet earth.. not true either, unless their fossils disintegrated. The oldest human fossil belongs to an African women, not Adam and eve and not a white person. But an African american (to some that won't matter, but many people believe white people were the first on this earth, i.e Adam and eve are depicted as Caucasian.

    Noah's Ark supposedly housed 40 pairs of animals, Noah and his wife, etc, for 40 days and 40 nights during "The Great Flood". If this truly happened then there would be physical evidence as well as fossils providing evidence for this tragic event. There should be thousands if millions of human fossils left from the great flood, and there should be physical evidence on the earth proving this. But there is no such evidence.

    I hope I win this round. I do have more facts, but I will go with these for now.

  • 9 years ago

    The Jews who wrote the OT had no no notion of Jesus, and still do not, so any so called "prediction" that christians make concerning what is written in the OT....is moot. The Jews do not believe in the Christian "Jesus"

    The bible has no real historicity.....most bible scholars will admit that. Many of the stories such as the story of Noah's ark were plagiarized from stories from older religions. (Noah is almost identical to a story in the Epic of Gilgamesh) This is explained in a text used at Harvard Seminary called "Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions" by TW Doane...which you can download at books.google.com.

    In fact, the much older religions of Hinduism and Buddhism have much more historicity than Christianity. There are records of Buddha, and writings during his lifetime. They also recorded the events of Krishna in an epic historical battle.

    The writings concerning Jesus however, are HEARSAY....written well after the fact. The gospel accounts are all slightly different.....and would not hold up in court.

    It also says in the bible that the earth is flat....and disease is caused by "demons"

    The text "The Bible Unearthed" explains that there is NO ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE for any event that they claim took place....including the Exodus. The Bible Unearthed is a reliable text written by a Jewish archeologist.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Wundt
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Hypocrisy. If a Christian finds 'evidence' for god, they shout it from the rafters. But, when that evidence fails, they they say, 'god it untestable'. They cannot have it both ways. Either god is testable or he isn't, he cannot be one when it is convenient to you, and the other when it isn't. Either god answers prayers or he doesn't. Either he made us from 'mud' or he didn't. Scanning the over-long text above, there are many examples of this selective reporting.

    However, the crux of the whole issue is that the statement 'there is a god' is the 'positive' claim. As such, someone making a positive claim MUST provide the evidence. The default hypothesis cannot be a positive claim, it is always the negative claim (i.e. ' there is no god'). For example, if I said to you, "I have $1,000,000 in my pocket", making the claim does not make it the truth. And if I walk into a Ferrari dealership and say, "I have $1,000,000, give me a car", they are going to demand proof before they hand over the keys. But if I say, "I don't have $1,000,000", it may or may not be true, but it does not require proof because it is the default (in the absence of evidence for the positive claim you fall back to the negative), just as "there is no god" does not require proof.

  • 9 years ago

    Okay to be honest I didn't read anything except the question. I personally think you are just wanting there to be a war between beliefs.. But I'm gonna give my honest opinion on the question anyways.

    To answer your question from a Christian believer stand point. Say I had no idea about anything of the Christianity religion. Someone comes up to me on the street and tells me all about it. From what I know today, I would probably not think it was logical that someone could perform so many miracles without seeing it.

    But... How logical is it that we just exist without any reasoning but just to die? The universe is so great with wonder and questions that will never be answered. Why would the universe make it so simple that we just exist. Everything is so complex in our world alone. To believe that we are here just for this short time period with no purpose than to just die, would make every intricate detail, that we as man know thus far, not so wonderfully complex.

    It could not be that simple. Nothing that man has ever tried to answer has ever been simple. Why would something as unique as life be so plain? This universe we live in has many unanswered questions and does not leave on simple notes.

    So no, it would not be logical for someone who could not fathom the intricacy of the universe we live in, to believe in it. But if you understand how complex we really are, it is not so far fetched to believe it may as well be fact that we are not alone in this life.

    Source(s): My personal opinion.
  • Alice
    Lv 5
    9 years ago

    Atheist:

    If God created the Universe, and God IS the Universe, and nothing created God, then nothing created the Universe.

    God is defined as absolute truth. Absolute truth cannot be denied. Example: I cannot deny my own existence. You cannot deny your own existence. I CAN, however, deny God's existence.

    If God is everything in existence, then I am also God. Therefore the word "God" is unnecessary, as we already have the words "everything" and "Universe" and "existence".

    Christianity is religion and the creation of all religions were crime scenes. Christians say we are all sinners and we have all wronged. I say speak for yourself.

  • 9 years ago

    I am a Christian and have studied the Bible extensively and can say that there are contradictions and errors in various areas of the Bible. This is due to translation errors because of a) the translators just got it wrong, b) they didn't understand the doctrine being taught, or c) they didn't agree with the doctrine being taught. One example, "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh", I'm sorry but God does not harden hearts, people do this on their own.

    Source(s): To truly understand the Bible in its entirety you must first obtain the Spirit of the Lord to open your eyes.
  • 9 years ago

    In science, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If this is true, why are there energies around us ? How could this be ? what or who created energy ?

    The deeper you go into science, the more you will realize that it is all have been designed in a way beyond our comprehension ever. GBU

    Source(s): God exist even if you do not want to believe it.
  • 3 years ago

    As others have stated...I surely wrote you off at "raining." As for something...you're joking, precise? I propose, like completely joking? Did you even study this drained crap you published and dubbed "champ?" I propose it easily says "And, inspite of what others would say, the Bible does have scientific accuracy, besides. they at the instant are not reported in technical words or scientifically..." It says in one sentence that the Bible has scientific accuracy and then in the VERY next ONE a hundred% backpeddles the declare and says that something the Bible has to declare approximately technology isn't written as technology or in technical words, yet in obscure, couched metaphors--i.e., no longer scientific "accuracy" in any respect. And those claims would desire to no longer be any much less precise than they're. I propose, they even have the cajones to declare that the Bible describes the "regulation of conservation of mass and potential" via quoting this: "...some time past via God's word the heavens existed and the earth replace into formed out of water and via water." additionally they declare different issues are by some skill scientific insights like "the massive style of stars in the sky" (Um...purely look up? that's no longer precisely a discovery) and the "paramount value of blood in existence techniques" (as though determining that as quickly as human beings bleed plenty they die replace into some confusing, scientific step forward or something). it is a comedian tale, precise?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.