Bible Reloaded Vs Sacerdotus

***UPDATE***

“Bible Reloaded” has not countered my response in over 2 months and has therefore forfeited.  He is declared the loser of the debate.

This is the debate and its rules: 

God, can He be proven to exist?
Can He be proven not to exist? 

  • Both sides should provide coherent reasons supported by evidence. 
  • No ad hominem, vulgarity and the like. 
  • Arguments should be stable and not wander around. 
  • If an argument is not clear or is too complicated, questions can be posted within two asterisk (*) symbols. ie **What did you mean by….** 
  • The winner will be the one who has provided the strongest arguments.
  • If any participant fails to continue, he/she will be disqualified and deemed the loser.  
  • No one other than Bible Reloaded and Sacerdotus will be allowed to comment here.
Format:
Opening Speech – Opponent
Opening Speech  – Sacerdotus
First Rebuttal – Opponent
First Rebuttal – Sacerdotus
Second Rebuttal – Opponent
Second Rebuttal – Sacerdotus
Closing Statement – Opponent

Closing Statement  – Sacerdotus

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Atheism, Bible Reloaded, debate, Sacerdotus, Twitter. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Bible Reloaded Vs Sacerdotus

  1. Wow, we've really gone for the “big one” with this question haven't we? Can God be proven to exist or can he be proven not to exist? Notice I didn't capitalize “he”. That's because we haven't talked about which god we're trying to prove. I could ask you “can you prove Zeus to exist?” and of course you would scoff at the question, and of course questioning Zeus' existence is absurd (don't tell some modern day Greco-Roman Pagans though). What about Shiva? Odin? John Frum? You would naturally say that they are not in fact the true gods of this universe, and that your god specifically is the only true god.
    Let's assume for argument's sake that you are talking about the Christian God Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, or whatever you all label him these days (I think it's a safe bet). Can we prove the Abrahamic God to exist? Trying to prove any god exists is a pointless endeavor and you know it. For you to even pose this question is absurd. The great Christian philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard has said “If God does not exist it would of course be impossible to prove it; and if he does exist it would be folly to attempt it.” So even the brightest Christian minds KNOW that in fact it is ridiculous to posit such a question by the fact that the question is quite literally unknowable.
    Now why is it that this question is “folly” as Kierkegaard put it? Because proof requires some sort of verifiable data and reasoning, but our reasoning is limited in the realm of metaphysics. The most honest people would simply acknowledge these limits and accept that some things are unknowable.
    Now after you read that, I assume you did some sort of internal jump-for-joy/ “I got 'em now” reaction because it seems I'll be conceding my lack of belief for a more agnostic approach. That's where you will be very disappointed. By definition it seems that the word Atheist has this sort of Absolutism to it where no matter what, we won't believe in a deity, irrespective of “proof”. That simply isn't true. Most of us identify as Atheist because we are much further towards the Atheist side than the neutrality of agnosticism. It's like being a Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative. You call yourself a Republican, but some Republicans are more or less conservative than others. See Also: Mitt Romney (Massachusetts Romney not Presidential Candidate Romney; rather moderate). By its strict definition, Atheists should in fact not believe in any deity EVER. But the way Atheism works is not as a sort of blind denial (opposite of blind faith), but rather an informed decision based upon the overwhelming amount of information out there that supports a contrarian view to that of modern day Christianity and all other religions (except of course Pastafarianism). (Continued…)

    Like

  2. (Part 2)
    It was important for me to clarify Atheism right now, so that you don't try to perform some rather pedestrian verbal gymnastics in an effort to discredit my lack-of-belief system somehow.
    The point is that you cannot come up with any sort of proofs of God's existence any more than I or anyone else can come up with disproofs. It appears we are at an impasse, and the rational beings we are must make a decision: Believe the unbelievable, or believe the believable. On the one hand, the unbelievable option is by definition much more rewarding (at least in the long run) if it is actually true. The believable path takes us on a less ideal journey (for some), but has so much support, that it would take a heavy dose of cognitive dissonance to believe otherwise. So basically Pascal's Wager. Modern philosophers agree that when it comes to this topic of existence of God, it requires a leap of faith. This rather Teleological view the religious have is born form two things: Innocent Ignorance (ignorance which is not your fault, like the theory of Geo-centrism pre Copernicus) and Willful Ignorance (ignorance that is your fault, like still maintaining Geo-centrism while you have overwhelming evidence to the contrary). Given human beings' ability to reason and given the Brobdingnagian array of evidence in support of evolutionary science, Big Bang Theory, etc., coupling that with the literal non-existence of any deified intervention in modern times, leads one to not hold the Bible, its claims, or its God in any regard other than ancient Hebrew folklore. Not to mention the Holy text's mountain of inconsistencies, atrocities, vacuous moral tone, and lack of supporting claims. So to answer the first question in it's entirety, “Can God be proven or unproven?” No he can't, just like you can't prove or disprove Xenu, the creation God of Scientology. But I would love to hear you try 🙂

    -Jake from The Bible Reloaded-

    P.S.- I'll be posting this entire statement on our own Facebook, just in case you want to get a little “editorial”, if you catch my drift 😉 It can be seen here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Bible-Reloaded/490458964314966?ref=hl

    Like

  3. Sacerdotus says:

    The question of God's existence has been around since man first acquired the capacity to reason, and hence question. Some feel the question has been answered, while there are those who still feel they need more evidence in order to accept any answers posited. I use the term “God” deliberately. Atheists often try to present their case that there is a plurality of gods and one must choose a particular designation attributed to a god in order to defend god. This is false. There are not different gods, nor a plurality of gods, ontologically speaking.

    The reason why many gods seem to exist due to the different designations is due to the reason I began my opening statement. Man has always wondered his own origins. God has always been part of this wondering. The concept of a Creator has been present in every culture known. The result of this presence is the different designations given to god based on a culture's experience and understanding at the moment the designation was given. Therefore, regardless of whether one culture calls god “Zeus,” “Jupiter,” “Yahweh,” “Jehovah,” or “Shiva” makes no difference for the mere fact that the aforementioned classified the concept of a supreme being or creator for the stated reason.

    It is not a “my god vs your god” thing, but rather, this is a “how I see god and this is how you see god” one . There is no “Christian God,” or “Muslim God” etc. There are only views of God from different faiths. Most philosophers have always tried to prove God. Granted, there are limitations due to the fact that a finite being is attempting to understand an infinite one; nevertheless, God can be known and proven to exist. Some philosophers of the past may have claimed that God cannot be proven, but this is due to the fact that they did not have the knowledge or tools that we have today. With the advancement in technology and the sciences, God can be proven to exist much easier than in the past where one relied on rational argumentation. Furthermore, there is a difference between proving God and presenting God. Some atheists feel that in order to prove God one must present God before their eyes.

    This is not proving God. God reveals Himself to anyone at anytime. Moreover, the Bible cannot be used to disprove or discredit God. The Bible is a collection of books written at different points of history. Each book contains the experience of man while seeking God. It therefore has atrocities and inconsistencies that are found in man's history and man himself. The Bible when read without the use of presentism is much more than archaic texts of the past. It presents truth using the literal techniques of the time from which it was written. I posit that God can be proven to exist and that it is in our nature to seek God. Atheism itself is part of this search.

    As a former atheist and student of science, I will attempt to dismantle any argument my opponent posits. Most atheist arguments are based on presentism, misrepresentation of facts, and misunderstanding. I will highlight this where appropriate.

    Like

  4. Just as you use the term “God” deliberately, I too used the plurality of God's argument deliberately. This was for two reasons:
    1) You either had to say basically: “Yeah but those were wrong”
    2) Or you had to say what your argument ended up being, which was that plurality was just a misrepresentation of the true God, which happens to be your God.
    I don't know if you realize what this argument does to your position or not, so I'll fill you in. Your basic argument suggests that all faiths that are not that of the Abrahamic God are inherently one and the same. So Odin, Zeus, Shiva, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all just representations from different cultures that explain the one true creator God, Yahweh. You fortify your position by saying the words, “ ontologically speaking”. This is obviously the argument from Saint Anselm which states that because we cannot conceive of anything greater or more perfect than God, he must exist, because existence is a prerequisite of perfection. I guess now I have to pick Anselm apart for you.
    In order for the ontological argument to maintain footing, it needs to back up the claim that in fact God is perfect,and therefore exists, because his existence is contingent upon him being the ultimate thing that we can conceive (in his argument). Well what is perfection? In order to maintain that God indeed is perfect and therefore exists because perfection belies existence, one must define perfection. You could say that perfection is something that has no flaws. We define many things as “flawless”, yet they are not divine. For God's definition of perfection, we need more. We need to assume some higher meaning of perfection. We can easily say “Imagine a perfect circle”, as we have a clear impression of what the essential properties of a circle are, and can recognize the actual circles we come across daily as reckonings of some imputed ideal. If, on the other hand, we say “Imagine a maximally powerful being”, we run into trouble, as “power” is a diffuse concept, and our daily interactions with powerful beings tend to diverge, not converge towards some ideal. Thus the conundrum of whether an omnipotent being can create a rock so large he cannot lift it. If we then extend this to “imagine a perfect being”, we're lost. We can't even begin to list all of the perfections such a being would have, much less be able to coherently conceive of the interactions between them. Therefore because we cannot conceive of this perfection, then Anselm's argument falls apart because our ability to conceive of God's perfection is a prerequisite for his existence. And if we can't conceive the properties of perfection, then we cannot say that in fact existence is actually a prerequisite for perfection. Therefore the Ontological argument falls flat, as does your argument.

    Like

  5. The next thing we have to tackle is how you have named your God the ultimate one. To review, your argument is not that there are many gods to choose from, rather there are different ways of qualifying God while Christianity seems to have the correct answer. Do you not see the position you've put yourself in? You basically say that until Christianity came along, we didn't have the correct answer, but NOW WE KNOW that the Christian God (along with Jesus, who apparently is also God…) is the correct answer. This implies that for some unknown reason, Christianity stumbled across the correct answer and every religion before, during, or since has been wrong. Using your same argument against you, how do you KNOW that this is the correct version of God you pray to? Couldn't it be possible that your religion is just another of these false representations of whatever the true creator God would be? What sets your religion apart from the much older religions as far as legitimacy is concerned? Is it because the Bible says so? Are we to forget that the Bible is a conglomeration of several Hebrew texts (a fact that you concede in your own argument) and has been revised and edited over the centuries countless times? Also we must maintain the knowledge that the ancient Hebrews believed in the Gods of the surrounding peoples, they just held them in no reverence. Are we to say that at the same time the ancient Hebrews “found” the right god, they were simultaneously denouncing his existence? By your definition, all Gods are just substrates of “THE GOD”. So the ancient Hebrews were by your definition, simultaneously believing and not believing in the true God. You seem to have a conundrum on your hands. And isn't this argument also a contradiction of God himself? Commandment #1 of the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me”. This implies that NOT ONLY are there other gods, but that those other gods are inherently NOT God, which makes your argument pointless, because he is separating himself from those other options, which you seem to have conglomerated into one being. So even your God disagrees with you.
    You also say that science and experimentation has given us the ability to prove God's existence, a bold claim indeed. I suggest that you go prove this idea and reap the rewards as soon as possible, because statistically if you found proof of God, somebody else has too, You better hurry! You'll be rich!
    I guess I'll finish by dealing with your argument of presentism. If you could present God, that of course would be ideal for any sort of proof. But just telling us to “have faith” is no sort of proof. If this were a court case, you would lose based on lack of evidence and a poor argument. Show contrarian evidence that supports your God while at the same time rejects the contrarian view. You don't need to present God to any Atheist, no matter how ideal it would be. Rather you would have to refute the evidence that doesn't support the Bible specifically, its God, and its Messiah. For example according to the Bible, we have to date the Earth at roughly 6'000+ years, while anybody with knowledge of dating methods or even a basic understanding of bedrock stratification in the Earth can refute easily. Furthermore, the implication of not only starting from Adam and Eve, but eventually starting back over from Noah and his sons' offspring is outrageous in a genetic setting. While you are a Catholic, I assume you (because your church does) embrace evolution. So then how do you reconcile where to begin when the Bible changes from allegorical to “biographical”? This is the sort of cherry-picking that makes your position flimsy at best. And is why we as Atheists cannot accept your belief system or God.

    Like

  6. Sacerdotus says:

    Not at all. As I stated before in my opening, the many designations of God stem from man's attempt to understand the ONE reality that is God. For example. One may call his father daddy, another papa, or even sir. These differences in designation of the parental unit that represents fatherhood is based on cultural differences and said culture's experience with relationships in the family and how their semantics are ordered in their language. This is important for you to understand and have clarity on before we can proceed. Not in one instance have I stated that all faiths are the same. What I am stating is the origin of the designations of each god and how they reflect the common understanding that there is indeed a God. Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an interpretation of God by man due to man's experience and understanding. Perhaps the flying can demonstrate God's ability to be “above all.” The “spaghetti” element can mean that God provides life to all just like spaghetti provides nutrition to cells and keeps them alive. The “monster” can mean God's justice or wrath. Do you see now what I mean? Primitive man knew God existed; however, he in his limited understanding described God the best he could either by using myths, different titles and depictions and so on. The name “Yahweh” reflects this as well. It is a name or title showing that God IS the constant. “I AM” describes God as the being that has no beginning nor end, or basically outside of space and time. This does not mean that God is limited to this “YHWH' designation. God used this word to better help Moses and the people understand where God stands in regards to space and time. Similarly, God is describe as “wind,” “water” and in other metaphorical ways. I used the words “ontologically speaking” to highlight that I am reflecting on the “being” of God, not the “becoming” that man places on Him. I was not referring to Anselm at all. You are falling into a strawman now. I won't address your take on Anselm because it has nothing to do with my original post. However, I will address it on my other blog directly.

    Like

  7. Sacerdotus says:

    The problem here that you seem to be having is that you are forgetting that this debate is about the existence of God, not how religions view God. The whole rant on whether Christianity found the “correct answer” or not is irrelevant to this debate. To answer your confusion, God chose to reveal Himself to the Hebrews and came as Jesus Christ to start the Catholic Church. This is what separates Judaism and Christianity from other religions. We did not name God, God named Himself to us. We did not go to God, God came to us. In other religions, man is going to God and trying to define Him. They offered sacrifices they felt pleased God without truly knowing what God wanted. Again, this is not a my God vs your God thing. That tactic is used by atheists to try to trivialize God and religion. Those tactics will not work with me because I used to be an atheist. You need to focus on the topic: God's existence. We can debate the religion stuff at a later date if you wish. The first commandment was given to assist the Hebrew's transition from Paganism/Polytheism to Monotheism. Remember, the Hebrews were making a golden calf and worshiping it as God while God gave Moses the commands. This was because of what my opening statement mentioned. They tried to define and describe God in the way their minds and creativity allowed them to based on their experience; especially in Egypt where animals were depicted as divine. God specifically stated not to have other gods for this reason. It was not because there are other gods out there competing with Him. He was conditioning His people to accept the reality that God cannot be completely visualized or perceived by the human mind. We cannot create or define an image of God because God cannot be captured by the human mind which is finite. When I state that science and experimentation has given us the ability to prove God's existence, I mean that we can see for ourselves that our existence- this universe's existence is not a product of random causality. Recently, physicists found evidence that the universe might be a computer simulation or program. I wrote an extensive blog post on it on my sacerdotus.com blog.

    Like

  8. Sacerdotus says:

    In regards to presentism, you are giving a great example of it now. You are attempting to apply our understanding to that of ancient people's. This is unfair to them and to yourself because you are then deprived of their true meaning. You are imposing your meaning on their's. The Bible, like any other piece of literature has a particular audience with particular themes. In the Bible's case, it has many since each book was written at different points in time and in different places. That being said, in order for you to understand a particular book, verse or chapter, you have to place yourself in the situation of the people. You have to have background information of what was going on, how they thought, how they expressed themselves. Ancient peoples did not have an accurate measurement of time. Europeans were still using the lunar calendar, while other groups such as the Mayans used the solar one. Both did the best they could with the technology and understanding available. That being said, you cannot discredit the Bible's version of time because it adds up existence to 5000-6000 years. You cannot impose your understanding of time on theirs and mock theirs. Our own dating methods of today have been questioned by scientists. Nothing is 100%. Furthermore, Faith is often misunderstood as meaning to blindly believe or follow something. This is not what faith is. Faith is one's direction or attitude toward's God. To throw a wrench to your anti-faith argument, we all rely on faith, so to speak. We don't perceive things as they truly are. They are filtered by our brains. We have faith that our brains are perceiving “reality” correctly. Moreover, we never touch anything! What we perceive as “touch” is a field generated by electrons around atoms. We trust that this field and our nervous system are communicating with each other the correct information about particular atoms. We all run on faith! In order to reconcile allegorical from biographical and vice versa, we study the original texts alongside what we know from history and archaeology. The same is done with any other piece of history. As an atheist, if you believe you are touching a computer now knowing that you're not, then you can very well believe God does exist even though He is not “tangible.”

    Like

  9. Rebuttal 2 To Sacerdotus
    “God stems from man's attempt to understand the ONE reality that is God ”
    That is the most circular statement I've ever read.
    “Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an interpretation of God by man due to man's experience and understanding. Perhaps the flying can demonstrate God's ability to be “above all.” The “spaghetti” element can mean that God provides life to all just like spaghetti provides nutrition to cells and keeps them alive. The “monster” can mean God's justice or wrath.”
    Do you even know what in the Holy [Fart] you're saying?! This is laughable! The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a god made by Atheists to mock you. It doesn't represent any actual ideology. There's stripper factories an beercanoes (beer volcanoes) a tree, a mountain, and a midget in the doctrine. It's purposefully foolish, and for you to give it ANY actual thought whatsoever is annoying. You sound like a [poopy] English teacher talking about the symbolism of some book like Grapes of Wrath or something. Ugg.
    “God used this word to better help Moses and the people understand where God stands in regards to space and time.”
    Well now we have a problem. As a rather avid History enthusiast you're gonna have to now prove to me Moses was even a person. Because dude, there is ZERO evidence supporting the Exodus story as we know that the cities, walls, and pyramids were built by the people following THEIR RELIGION. There is no evidence or corroboratory stories to support the Exodus claim. Now I often get “well do you think the Egyptians would document such an embarrassing moment?!” Whether or not they wanted to, someone would have. The Egyptians were excellent record keepers. Do you really expect me or anyone else to take the Biblical story at it's face value and assume hundreds of thousands of Jews escaped from Egypt and the Egyptians kept no records of those slaves?!
    “The whole rant on whether Christianity found the “correct answer” or not is irrelevant to this debate.”
    It most certainly is not irrelevant. You not only claim God's existence but as we can see above, have cited Biblical doctrine as a basis for that assertion. You can't argue on God's behalf with a Bible in hand (metaphorically of course) and in the same breath ignore or dismiss the fact that the Bible is your source for this belief. Not to mention that your platform is one of the Catholic Church. What a poor, poor tactic. You should be ashamed. To illustrate, the VERY NEXT SENTENCE you type to me is this: “To answer your confusion, God chose to reveal Himself to the Hebrews and came as Jesus Christ to start the Catholic Church.” Do you really not understand why my Bull [feces] Meter would go off at this nonsense? This is derisory.
    “This is what separates Judaism and Christianity from other religions. We did not name God, God named Himself to us.”
    Aaaaaand then in natural fashion you go on to describe to me exactly why you believe your religion is the correct one. Tell me again why my statement was irrelevant? Your argument is vapid.
    “They offered sacrifices they felt pleased God without truly knowing what God wanted.”
    I don't even have space for the amount of times people sacrifice to God in the OT, but I do know he liked it. “The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart ” (then he promises not to murder the entire human race again) but clearly your point is that other religions sacrificed other [anal refuse] to God, like people maybe? Is that what you're getting at? Cuz you know that cross around your neck? Ahh never mind. But yeah God likes animal and human sacrifice. Just like basically all other religions in that area (Mesopotamia) displayed.

    Like

  10. Sacerdotus says:

    You obviously missed the point in my previous comment. I was merely giving an example of how man can use his experience with things known and use them to describe God. Notice what you wrote, “…is a god made by atheists to mock you.” Atheists made up the flying spaghetti monster by applying natural elements experienced in nature to the concept of God. You have actually proven my point by stating this!

    There is evidence of the “Habiru” or Hebrews in Egyptian inscriptions as slaves, so obviously some thing did happen. In regards to Moses, like with any other ancient figure, evidence that would paint an entire portrait is not easy to come by. King Arthur is an example of this. Nevertheless, Egyptian historian Tutimaos wrote:

    “Tutimaos: In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods and treated all our natives with cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others.”

    Some believe this to be a reference to the plagues and the Hebrew slaves. Take notice of the use of “God” as opposed to gods.

    In any event, it is highly unlikely that a people (Jews) will base themselves on a myth. We must take the outcome of history at face value and realize that something in the past happened in such a way to create the present we know today even if evidence is not recorded in a way we wished it would have been. It is also understood that Egyptian Pharaohs did not like to record any events that made them look weak.

    Moses is not part of the debate, so I believe you are getting off topic here.

    My comment regarding your “correct answer” previous one has to do with your attempt to side track from the main topic of the debate. Like with Moses, you are getting off topic by trying to use history to support atheism. This debate is not about what is historical and what is not. It is about whether or not God exists. So your suggestion that no one had the correct answer until Christianity came along, or that there is no evidence for Moses has nothing to do with the debate topic. We are not arguing over what is history and what is not.

    In regards to your confusion over sacrifices, I already answered it in my previous comment where I mentioned the transition from Paganism to Monotheism.

    Like

  11. “Those tactics will not work with me because I used to be an atheist.”
    Why the [fruit] do you always say this? Do you think it gives you like, street cred or something? I honestly don't even know what you're trying to convey here besides “[Pickle] you Atheist”, because we don't have a party line to follow or anything. Annoying, and also implies that I have some sort of treacherous intent by using the word tactics. I'm not a [science-damned] secret agent.
    “Remember, the Hebrews were making a golden calf and worshiping it as God while God gave Moses the commands.”
    Then they were murdered… that's all.
    “They tried to define and describe God in the way their minds and creativity allowed them to based on their experience”
    I guess it stands to reason then that God hates the [crap] out of creativity. Especially creativity about Cows. Why hasn't he murdered the Hindus yet?
    “It was not because there are other gods out there competing with Him”
    Astroloth – Judges 2:13, Samuel 7:3-4
    Baal – 2 Samuel 2:8; 1 Kings 17:1, 18:17-19; 2 Kings 1:2-5; Jeremiah 9:13-16; Hoseah2:2-13, 14-22
    Baal-zebul – 2 Kings 1:2-5
    Bel – Isaiah 46:1-4 (also in apochraphal chapters removed from Daniel)
    Beelzebul – Mark 3:22
    Chemosh – Numbers 21:29, Judges 11:24
    “Day Star” and Dawn – Isaiah 14:12-15
    Hadad-rimmon – Zechariah 12:11
    Ishtar – Jeremiah 44:15-28
    Marduk – Jeremiah 50:2-3
    Milkom – 2 Samuel 12:30
    Nabu – Isaiah 46:1-4
    Sakkuth and Kaiwan – Amos 5:26
    Tammuz – Isaiah 17:9-11; Ezekiel 8:14-18; Daniel 11:36-39
    The other gods listed within Biblical text. I rest my case.
    “We cannot create or define an image of God because God cannot be captured by the human mind which is finite”
    Then you can't say with certainty that your religion is indeed the right one, or that the Bible accurately or reliably depicts the God you pray to. Hmmm…
    “this universe's existence is not a product of random causality”
    Funny when Christians say this they always exclude God from the statement…
    “You are attempting to apply our understanding to that of ancient people's. This is unfair to them and to yourself because you are then deprived of their true meaning. You are imposing your meaning on theirs”
    And it's fair for you to do so instead of me? Or your clergymen, popes, and priests? Funny again the only reason it's unfair for me to do is because I don't subscribe to the religion. Amazing bit of logic.

    “Ancient peoples did not have an accurate measurement of time.” Then you qualify it with some [bull-pucky] arguments about lunar cycles and such…
    And then you say:
    “That being said, you cannot discredit the Bible's version of time because it adds up existence to 5000-6000 years”
    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah gasp hahahahahaha.
    “Nothing is 100%”
    Even God?
    “As an atheist, if you believe you are touching a computer now knowing that you're not, then you can very well believe God does exist even though He is not 'tangible'.”
    Weird… isn't there something about that process that we CAN observe? Man maybe my memory is bad or my physics is tired, but I certainly seem to remember that we can OBSERVE [effing] ATOMS AND THEIR ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS!
    Since this is the last rebuttal according to the layout you set, I'll finish by saying this:
    You are really, really, really, really, really bad at this. You contradict yourself, you seem devoid of logical reasoning, and this was a waste of my time. Also I win by popular vote 🙂
    -Jake from The Bible Reloaded-
    youtube.com/user/thebiblereloaded
    For the Original Version, see our Facebook Page @ http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=299306250198326&id=490458964314966&notif_t=like

    Like

  12. Sacerdotus says:

    Your ad hominem is duly noted. It is a sign that your position is not strong enough to hold. 🙂 Most of your post has nothing to do with the debate. You are bringing up Biblical misconceptions that have nothing to do with the debate topic.

    To keep it brief, your argument is based on presentism. You are not interpreting the Bible passages you cite in the manner that they were meant to be interpreted. You cannot interpret ancient texts with the understanding of culture and how we do things today.

    The rest of your argument is all over the place and hard to follow. You are not really addressing my points directly.

    Like

  13. Sacerdotus says:

    It has been over 2 months and “Bible Reloaded” has not countered. It is fair to state that “Bible Reloaded” has forfeited and is to be declared the loser of the debate. All entries are now closed.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s