Looking for a formal debate with a theist.

[Tom 1]

Ok, well i'll just ask. Why do you believe in god?

I don’t really have a short answer to that question

 

[NullHypothesis]

I don’t really have a short answer to that question

I don't mind, i like reading. Or if you prefer to not type so much, you can narrow it down to the most convincing reason you believe.

 

[Tom 1]

It’s not really one for a formal debate for me, essentially I came to a belief in God, the God of the bible, by comparing different world views and deciding on which one made most sense to me. It wasn’t quite so straightforward as that sounds however and involved so many different books and people etc that I don’t see how I could use that in a debate

 

[Tom 1]

I don't mind, i like reading. Or if you prefer to not type so much, you can narrow it down to the most convincing reason you believe.

Thinking about it one particular topic I would be interested in is the dating of the book of Luke, reason being I haven’t found a solid argument for dating it later than around 60BC that I didn’t think was based in some dubious assumptions or selective arguments. If that’s something you have an interest in

 

[NullHypothesis]

It’s not really one for a formal debate for me, essentially I came to a belief in God, the God of the bible, by comparing different world views and deciding on which one made sense to me. It wasn’t quite so straightforward as that sounds however and involved so many different books and people etc that I don’t see how I could use that in a debate

Then i would ask how you determined that christianity was correct and other world views are incorrect?

A follow up would be, is it possible for something to make sense to you and also be wrong? For instance, it would make sense that the world seems flat because it's too big to see a curve, but it is in fact not flat.

 

[NullHypothesis]

Thinking about it one particular topic I would be interested in is the dating of the book of Luke, reason being I haven’t found a reason for dating it later than around 60BC that I didn’t think was based in some dubious assumptions or selective arguments. If that’s something you have an interest in

Ok, let me respond to your historical inquiry too. That way you can respond to both of my points in one message. I don't mind having 2 or 3 topics going on per message, i just get confused when we are sending multiple messages back and forth in no particular order. lol.

I would say the validity of the bible is something i am highly interested in. I have done some research on this, it depends on which bible you're refferring. I think the most common one is the King James version which was written in the 15th century.

 

[Tom 1]

A follow up would be, is it possible for something to make sense to you and also be wrong? For instance, it would make sense that the world seems flat because it's too big to see a curve, but it is in fact not flat.

Well yes, nothing to disagree with there. Plenty of things seem to make sense at a given time, and don’t later. True for many things, not just Christian belief. That however would be more a subject for a long and rambling correspondence rather than a debate, well it would for me anyway. In my experience snappy arguments about ‘big’ questions are never very satisfying.

Then i would ask how you determined that christianity was correct and other world views are incorrect?

A process of comparison I suppose. But a comparison of a lot of different things, which I think are best addressed separately, as there are just too many possible tangents that would muddy any attempt at an overall attack, so to speak

 

[Kenny'sID]

You don't want to, so... there is nothing left to say.

Then why did you continue talking to me when I had already told you that I didn't want to debate, that was when there was nothing left to say, yet you talk anyway and I'm to blame now?

You may stop engaging me in conversation anytime you wish.

 

[Tom 1]

Ok, let me respond to your historical inquiry too. That way you can respond to both of my points in one message. I don't mind having 2 or 3 topics going on per message, i just get confused when we are sending multiple messages back and forth in no particular order. lol.

I would say the validity of the bible is something i am highly interested in. I have done some research on this, it depends on which bible you're refferring. I think the most common one is the King James version which was written in the 15th century.

The KJ is still popular but most people I think use modern English versions these days. The importance the translation you use depends on what your tack is, as some translations are more literal than others

 

[Tom 1]

Ok, let me respond to your historical inquiry too. That way you can respond to both of my points in one message. I don't mind having 2 or 3 topics going on per message, i just get confused when we are sending multiple messages back and forth in no particular order. lol.

I would say the validity of the bible is something i am highly interested in. I have done some research on this, it depends on which bible you're refferring. I think the most common one is the King James version which was written in the 15th century.

Nb it wasn’t written in the 15th C, that’s when it was translated, as in translated into English from the available texts, but based largely on Tyndale’s earlier translation

 

[NullHypothesis]

Well yes, nothing to disagree with there. Plenty of things seem to make sense at a given time, and don’t later. True for many things, not just Christian belief. That however would be more a subject for a long and rambling correspondence rather than a debate, well it would for me anyway. In my experience snappy arguments about ‘big’ questions are never very satisfying.



A process of comparison I suppose. But a comparison of a lot of different things, which I think are best addressed separately, as there are just too many possible tangents that would muddy any attempt at an overall attack, so to speak

It doesn't have to be a 100% formal debate. You can share whatever relevant information you wish to support your position that a god exists. That was the whole purpose of this thread lol.

So if something can make sense to you personally and be wrong, how did you determine you were correct?

You're right, i misspoke, it was translated in 15th century. Although i think there was some controvery as to how the bible was put together. Apparently the main reason King James created and revised a new translation is because it would help consolidate political power. The popular puritin bible greatly downplayed the divine right of kings, so he burned them all and created a new translation that would accentuate his own power among the church.

A question i would ask is if there are so many different interpretations and revisions of the "same" book, how can you know that yours is the correct translation? As there are many inconsistencies in the bible that conflict with morality, history, and other things we know to be true.

 

[Cat Loaf You]

I am technically an atheist. That means i reject the claim that a god exists. It's not an assertion that no gods exist or that no gods can exist, which would be a positive claim. Theists make the claim that a god exists so the burden of proof is on them to present evidence for their claim.

But in fair play i would say the reason i do not believe is that i have not been presented with sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in any god.

What about you, what's your reason for believing in god?

One edit* Those things you listed have no bearing on whether a god is real or not. If they proved tomorrow that evolution was wrong and the earth was 10 thousand years old, that still doesn't explain a god. You'd still have to prove god is real, otherwise it's just a claim.

Even if i knew that God exist i would have no idea which religion is right because every one claim to know God .
But there are two major things that Christianity offer which every other religion does not .

1) In almost every religion you need to pay your way to make God happy/get power or eternal life or to become God but in Christianity it's free gift .

2) All religions have some kind of manuscripts but you will never find prophecy fullfilled in any other religion than Christianity . Bible is about 30% prophecy and most of it is fullfilled so we know that God is true .

 

[Tom 1]

Apparently the main reason King James created and revised a new translation is because it would help consolidate political power. The popular puritin bible greatly downplayed the divine right of kings, so he burned them all and created a new translation that would accentuate his own power among the church.

That’s not correct - to sum it up very briefly, the dominant church authorities (backed by the force of states) at the time across parts of Europe made it illegal for the Bible to be translated without their direct involvement and authorisation, and certainly not into the ‘vulgar’ everyday English. Tyndale was a brilliant student who taught himself Hebrew, having perfected his Greek and Latin at Oxford, and he translated the OT and NT into English. The KJ came later but was mostly based on Tyndale’s version, and, following some head chopping and the sanction of the CofE (there’s a bit more to that but that’s my point - it’s complicated), this was made the ‘authorised version’ in England

 

[Tom 1]

Even if i knew that God exist i would have no idea which religion is right because every one claim to know God .
But there are two major things that Christianity offer which every other religion does not .

1) In almost every religion you need to pay your way to make God happy/get power or eternal life or to become God but in Christianity it's free gift .

2) All religions have some kind of manuscripts but you will never find prophecy fullfilled in any other religion than Christianity . Bible is about 30% prophecy and most of it is fullfilled so we know that God is true .

That’s not correct - to sum it up very briefly, the dominant church authorities (backed by the force of states) at the time across most of Europe made it illegal for the Bible to be translated without their direct involvement and authorisation, and certainly not into the ‘vulgar’ everyday languages of Europe. Tyndale was a brilliant student who taught himself Hebrew, having learned Greek and Latin at Oxford, and he translated the OT and NT into English. The KJ came later but was mostly based on Tyndale’s version, and, following some head chopping and the creation of the CofE, this was made the ‘authorised version’ in England

Nb if you’re interested Melvyn Bragg, who is also an atheist, wrote a fantastic book about the KJ version.

 

[Tom 1]

A question i would ask is if there are so many different interpretations and revisions of the "same" book, how can you know that yours is the correct translation? As there are many inconsistencies in the bible that conflict with morality, history, and other things we know to be true.

Hmm this is where it becomes problematic, as (apologies but it’s true), you are showing here that you don’t really have a developed understanding of this topic. Sorry, but that is pretty evident. I’m not saying there aren’t inconsistencies - there definitely are - but to have a debate you really need to be up to speed on what that actually means, what the details are as well as the contextual reasons etc.

 

[Cat Loaf You]

I don't mind, i like reading. Or if you prefer to not type so much, you can narrow it down to the most convincing reason you believe.

Just read it if you like reading .
1
Mathematical Bible Prophecy

2
Mathematical Bible Prophecy

 

[Acts2:38]

Just looking to debate any sort of theist. Just post in this thread what you believe and why.

No name calling or school yard tactics please, they don't serve any purpose. I prefer to have a one message system. Try to address all points with one message before moving on and making other points. Many times i have talked with theists who make a million points and am left to sift through a mountain of assertions before i can reach a conclusion or make a point myself. lol. Other than that. Bring it on!

Hello,

To throw out a tad bit of background information, I was brought up with a belief in God, however, just in public schools alone (including colleges), there was (and still is) a heavy emphasis to teach the Atheist faith. I had a time of "limbo" between the two beliefs, but came to the conclusion after much study that God must exist.

Things that brought me to this conclusion consisted of:

• Historical accuracy of the bible
• Predictions from OT made true in NT (could be sub category of historical accuracy)
• Laws of science
• 0 contradictions in the bible which history spans in the thousands and has multitudes of authors from different time periods all in perfect harmony

These are the "why's" that pulled me back to the existence of God and away from the hard forced Atheist faith (I say hard forced because its pushed in schools even though it is only a theory and not fact).

 

[NullHypothesis]

Hmm this is where it becomes problematic, as (apologies but it’s true), you are showing here that you don’t really have a developed understanding of this topic. Sorry, but that is pretty evident. I’m not saying there aren’t inconsistencies - there definitely are - but to have a debate you really need to be up to speed on what that actually means, what the details are as well as the contextual reasons etc.

I don't understand what you mean. It's a simple question. I am decently versed in the bible and have been studying it for 3 years. But regardless of my knowledge, i don't need to know anything about the bible to ask you how you determined it was valid. And by valid, i mean how you determined it was the word of god.

 

[NullHypothesis]

Even if i knew that God exist i would have no idea which religion is right because every one claim to know God .
But there are two major things that Christianity offer which every other religion does not .

1) In almost every religion you need to pay your way to make God happy/get power or eternal life or to become God but in Christianity it's free gift .

2) All religions have some kind of manuscripts but you will never find prophecy fullfilled in any other religion than Christianity . Bible is about 30% prophecy and most of it is fullfilled so we know that God is true .

You said you don't have any idea which religion is right. IF that's the case why do you claim christianity is right? And moreover, why do any of them have to be right? Can't it be true that none of them are?

So you determine religious validity based on if they make you pay or not? That seems like a bad way to determine if something is true or not. A claim should rise or fall on it's own merits, not what benefits you gain from it.

We need to define prophecy if we are going to talk about it. (which i am more than happy to talk about it) Give me your definition of a prophecy.

 

[Tom 1]

I don't understand what you mean. It's a simple question. I am decently versed in the bible and have been studying it for 3 years. But regardless of my knowledge, i don't need to know anything about the bible to ask you how you determined it was valid. And by valid, i mean how you determined it was the word of god.

You can’t really debate that without knowing some details, that’s where the stuff of the debate is. Without that it’s just a tornado of random opinions with no real basis. Don’t have time for that.