Formal Debate Peanut Gallery: The Bible Is Not the Inspired Word of God

[theophilus777]

Tyre was prophesied to be utterly destroyed. It wasn't, and it is currently a nice tourist town.

Is that the same city? Is it a different location?

<Staff Edit>

 

[BL2KTN]

Is that the same city? Is it a different location?

It is the same-named town, existing in the same geographic location, having changed over time but never utterly destroyed. It is as much still Tyre as New York City is still New York City.

<Staff Edit>

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

MOD HAT

Small cleanup done; please remember the flaming rule and keep it civil.

Mark
Staff Supervisor.

 

[BL2KTN]

Thanks for catching that, Mark.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thanks for catching that, Mark.

Thanks!

 

[theophilus777]

It is the same-named town, existing in the same geographic location

Not sure that is correct. I'll take a gander at the formal debate to see if you've verified this somehow.

 

[NannaNae]

it is very sad that because science is so clueless that you guys don't have a clue that the sea levels dropped around 1200 ft 3200 years ago it also dropped or raised up 2800 years ago....... to think you think that is the same spot that was tyre is really quite hilarious.

 

[Strathos]

it is very sad that because science is so clueless that you guys don't have a clue that the sea levels dropped around 1200 ft 3200 years ago it also dropped or raised up 2800 years ago....... to think you think that is the same spot that was tyre is really quite hilarious.

Where are you getting this from?

According to the sources I've found, the sea level 5000 years ago was less than 20 meters below what it is now, and it has only increased since then.

 

[RickG]

it is very sad that because science is so clueless that you guys don't have a clue that the sea levels dropped around 1200 ft 3200 years ago it also dropped or raised up 2800 years ago....... to think you think that is the same spot that was tyre is really quite hilarious.

I'm sorry NannaNae, but the scientific literature does not support your claims. Here's an archeological paper that shows exactly that Tyre and its ancient harbor now lie directly beneath the city's current location.

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...tages_to_preserve/file/9fcfd50b4a836c9f43.pdf

Also, would you please provide a reference concerning sea level rises and drops 3,200 and 2,800 years ago. And also, please state what events you believe to cause those sea level fluctuations. Thank you.

 

[pshun2404]

So ancient Tyre lays beneath and is no longer extant?

 

[jax5434]

As near as I can tell, once you sort thru the verbiage of bluelightenings first post, he seems to be using a modus tollens arguent along these lines

Premise A: I (bluelightening) have the only possible description of a divinely
inspired document.

Premise B: The bible does not meet my description of a divinely inspired
document.

Conc: The bible is not divinely inspired.

His entire argument simply assumes the truth of premise A. The remainder of his postings point out how the bible does not match the description he offers.
I believe that Premise A is an unprovable assertion. For it to be true Bluelightning would need to prove that he knows of all possible deities and all the possible ways a document inspired by any one of them might look.
As an example bluelightning assumes a deity must, of necessity, only desire to inspire people to "greater" things. That assumption is untrue. It is conceivable that a deity may wish to inspire confusion, avarice and so on.
If bluelightning is unable to prove his first premise his entire argument collapses.
I do think bluelightning won the debate, not because of the force of his arguments but because his opponent did not engage him on the right grounds.

God Bless
Jax

 

[BL2KTN]

Premise A: I (bluelightening) have the only possible description of a divinely
inspired document.

You will note that from the very first of the ten posts, I offered for Pshun2404 to contribute to base expectations of a text divinely inspired. I did not posit that I was detailing the only possible description of such a text, but only that I was offering what we could assume were minimal expectations. In other words, I didn't tell you what a major league pitcher's game would look like, only what type of performance would fit the minimum standards we would expect out of such a pitcher.

It would be safe to assume that a pitcher who throws a 40 mph fastball, has no other pitches, and can't hit the strike zone, is not a legitimate professional baseball player, no matter how much someone else argues in that favor. Likewise, because the bible is contradictory, immoral, a product of its own culture, and factually erroneous, it is not the work of a legitimate deity, not matter how much adherents might wish otherwise.

 

[pshun2404]

You will note that from the very first of the ten posts, I offered for Pshun2404 to contribute to base expectations of a text divinely inspired. I did not posit that I was detailing the only possible description of such a text, but only that I was offering what we could assume were minimal expectations. In other words, I didn't tell you what a major league pitcher's game would look like, only what type of performance would fit the minimum standards we would expect out of such a pitcher.

It would be safe to assume that a pitcher who throws a 40 mph fastball, has no other pitches, and can't hit the strike zone, is not a legitimate professional baseball player, no matter how much someone else argues in that favor. Likewise, because the bible is contradictory, immoral, a product of its own culture, and factually erroneous, it is not the work of a legitimate deity, not matter how much adherents might wish otherwise.

And as I made clear from the beginning my purpose was not to respond endlessly to your claims but to provide evidence and arguments "for"...most of your points came from the barrage of liberal anti-biblical bias I anticipated and were not worth comment...to address each one would have taken a series of small books...and you already had made up your mind so facts would only have been rejected or else would confuse you.

I on the other hand came from your camp and after many years of study (honestly and objectivity purposely ignoring what I had been taught to believe) KNOW there is a God and KNOW Him...you strain at the gnats swallowing the camel whole. Ever learning but never able to come to the truth...such is the path of knowledge-so-called. Believe what you will as you are the lord of your own life, the only god with which you have to do but just remember that might makes right in a survival of the fittest world. One day you will meet God explain your many reasons to Him on that Day my friend...

 

[jax5434]

what we could assume were minimal expectations

Why would you think that either of you would know the minimal expectations of a divine being?
The question isn't what you think are the minimal expectations but what a divine being would see as minimal.

God Bless
Jax

 

[BL2KTN]

And as I made clear from the beginning my purpose was not to respond endlessly to your claims but to provide evidence and arguments "for"...most of your points came from the barrage of liberal anti-biblical bias I anticipated and were not worth comment...to address each one would have taken a series of small books...and you already had made up your mind so facts would only have been rejected or else would confuse you.

It is generally accepted that I won the debate. I think in hindsight, perhaps you should have taken a different strategy.

I on the other hand came from your camp and after many years of study (honestly and objectivity purposely ignoring what I had been taught to believe) KNOW there is a God and KNOW Him...you strain at the gnats swallowing the camel whole. Ever learning but never able to come to the truth...such is the path of knowledge-so-called. Believe what you will as you are the lord of your own life, the only god with which you have to do but just remember that might makes right in a survival of the fittest world. One day you will meet God explain your many reasons to Him on that Day my friend...

The whole secret truth thing really doesn't do it for me. There is no experience which you have, that when offered to a knowledgeable human being, cannot be explained through natural causation. And though I may meet the creator at some point, I am as worried about the creator being Yahweh as I am that it will be Allah. I promise I don't fret at night over the idea of either being that which set the universe into motion.

Why would you think that either of you would know the minimal expectations of a divine being?
The question isn't what you think are the minimal expectations but what a divine being would see as minimal.

I know the minimal expectations of a divine being because said divine being is capable of quantum physics... so we should suspect it has some degree of intelligence. The bible, however, does not bode well for its author's knowledge. Take for example its belief that the sky is a hard dome (raqia). If Yahweh is a moron, I don't see how following him is very helpful... he's completely contradictory in the bible, so why should one think he wouldn't be in the hereafter?

 

[Strathos]

It is generally accepted that I won the debate.

Just keep telling yourself that and maybe people will actually start believing it.

 

[jax5434]

I know the minimal expectations of a divine being because said divine being is capable of quantum physics... so we should suspect it has some degree of intelligence.

You continue to simply assume most of your argument. The question is: What basis do you have for thinking a divine being (any divine being) has to conform to what you expect or suspect?

Until you can present a coherent reason for that belief (coherent to eyes other than your own) the remainder of your argument requires no response.

No one can successfully debate what you personally believe, which is what you're asking people to do,until you can at least offer some support for your primary supposition.

God Bless
Jax

 

[BL2KTN]

If you think Pshun did, you'll be the first to say so.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm thinking that this topic has run it's course. Do you guys feel there is any points regarding the topic of the debate that could benefit from further discussion. If so, let me know; otherwise, I will only leave this thread open for a couple more days.

Thanks.

Mark
Staff Supervisor

 

[RickG]

So ancient Tyre lays beneath and is no longer extant?

That is true of most if not all cities several hundred years of age and older. So your point is ...?