florduh

Existence of the God of the Bible

12 posts in this topic

L.B. said:  "MODS: I'm formally throwing my hat in the ring. If someone other than Jon himself is going to be appointed to choose or invite an opponent for his debate, I want to be on that list."

 

Jon said: (regarding his definition of god)  "No God of the bible (this is ex-christian forum)? The alpha and omega God almighty,all wise all knowing all true"

 

 

Debate Guidelines: To propose a formal debate, the following is required

1. General topic area (examples: Sexuality, Apologetics, Christology, Evolution, etc.).

2. Proposition. Must be a formal statement. Examples:

"The apostle Paul taught, in 1 Corinthians chapter seven, that divorced persons may marry."

"Creationism is supported by science."

"The Testimonium Flavium is historically valid.

NOTE 1: We are ExChristians, so a debate that presupposes that Christianity is factual is not appropriate. For instance, "Did Jesus' sacrifice bring salvation to all or just the elect?", would be a debate between believers, not between a believer and a non-believer, because it presumes that Christianity's claims are factual.

NOTE 2: Members of ExC.NET are former Christians, we are not "never been Christians". Please keep in mind this fact when debating here.

3. Debate parameters. These should follow basic debate rules, where the affirmative begins, the counter responds. Rounds of debate must be specified.

  example debate format said:
 
FORMAT

Round One:

Proponent opens - 1500 word limit

Opponent refutes - 1500 word limit

 

Round Two:

Proponent refutes above - 1000 word limit

Opponent refutes above - 1000 word limit

 

Round Three:

Proponent cross-examines - 3 questions only.

Opponent answers - 250 words each question.

 

Round Four:

Opponent cross-examines - 3 questions only.

Proponent answers - 250 words each question.

 

Round Five:

Proponent concludes - 500 word limit

Opponent concludes - 500 word limit

 

Membership Q&A

Member questions - 3 questions to each participant. 1 question only per member. A total of 6 questions asked.

 

GUIDELINES

 

Word Count - The best way to make sure your word count is within the given limits is to use an application such as Microsoft Word. Paste your document into Word and click on 'properties' under the dropdown menu 'File'. There is a tab that gives statistics. One of those statistics is a word count. The moderator will not count greetings and other such comments at the beginning and end of the post in the word count.

 

Proposal - Give your proposal an accurate short title descriptive of the thesis you will propose. Clearly state the background of your argument, be specific. (Catholic, reformed protestant, atheist, mormon, etc…) RESEARCH your topic beforehand and present a complete argument that is clear and well thought out. Define any terms our members or your opponent may not be clear on. Your Proposal may not exceed 1500 words.

 

Counter Proposal - The opponents may present one counter proposal specific to the proponent problem area. By this, we mean that the counterproposal must deal with the arguments presented by the proponent. State what the background of your counter argument is. Research your topic. Counter proposals should include a reasonable alternative. Define terms. Counter Proposal may not exceed 1500 words.

 

Rebuttal - Used to respond to the opposition’s lines of argument made in the proposal and counter proposal, and to extend arguments, clarify or introduce new evidence related to previous arguments. (New arguments in rebuttal are left to the discretion of the participants, but the participant should only advance new arguments if they have successfully addressed their opponent's arguments. The participant will risk their position if they fail to address their opponent and opt to "change the subject." In other words, new arguments are introduced at the debater’s own risk.) Rebuttals may not exceed 1000 words.

 

Cross Examination – Each participant will have an opportunity to ask the opposition 3 questions in cross-examination. Questions should be brief and specific and constructed as to not require an answer to exceed a couple paragraphs. Answers must deal directly with the questions. Answers may not exceed 250 words per question.

 

Conclusions - Demonstrate how you have established or refuted the thesis. Conclusions may not exceed 500 words.

 

Membership Q&A - Questions must be approved by the moderator/judge prior to them being answered. Post your questions after conclusions are complete. The Moderator will delete questions not chosen and mark selected questions to be answered as approved.

3 questions to each participant for a total of 6 questions will be approved.

 

**THERE WILL BE A 3 DAY LIMIT (MAX) BETWEEN RESPONSES**.

 

RULES

 

Evidence- ONLY use evidence that is accurate and thoroughly referenced in your presentation. Evidence will be accurately and directly quoted. (ALL EVIDENCE MUST BE FROM A PUBLISHED SOURCE, AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, AND VERIFIABLE.) The first time a source is presented, the debater must state the full source when introducing the evidence. A “full source” is assumed to include author’s name, author’s qualifications (when apparent in the original), full date, and title of source with page numbers. Once a source has been cited, evidence subsequently cited from the source need only include the author and/or publication name as well as a phrase along the lines of “previously cited.”

 

Conduct - Absolutely no personal attacks or ‘flames’. Please address your criticisms to arguments, not to people. If you violate this rule, your post will be deleted, and at the discretion of the moderator, you may be removed from the debate forum.

 

Important: Remember, debates are constructed for the benefit of the membership/listener, not your opponent. In other words, address your arguments to the audience! (Eg: "Mr. Smith has not shown how 'A' is true, because...)

 

4. If there is a specific person you wish to debate please state their name or state if you want the ExC members to choose an opponent.

 

Participants have been notified. Let the debate begin!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



I patiently await the news that Jon's proposition has been formally presented.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and 14 hours later, still silence from @Jon.

 

Not shocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 hours now, give or take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 hours and change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, lurkers! 44-ish hours now, and still no official proposition for debate from @Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know we have a new platform but I believe it still holds that any thread inactive for 30 days is automatically locked. 

 

The next post here should be from Jon with his opening statement. Okay?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, Jon is just another religious troll, but a debate might be fun anyway. Would anyone like to be a devil's advocate (!) and stand in for Jon in the debate? I'm pretty sure someone around here remembers how to argue the existence of the God of the Bible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to debate this, but this sub-forum has more rules that the Old Testament. Besides that, God has obviously sent a strong delusion to all of the Ex-Christians here, and thus they are unable to receive the truth, making a debate not just fluous, but superfluous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@duderonomy

 

besides that, God has obviously sent a strong delusion to all of the Ex-Christians here

 

Define "God", please - to which god are you referring, and on what grounds do you claim to possess authority to proclaim what this god has "obviously" done?

 

 

That would have been fun - see, @Jon ? It's always been a very, very simple thing. You propose a debate topic concerning your claims about your god, and I reply with the above.

My opening statement would have been:

 

"I submit that @Jon cannot possibly speak definitively about the god of the Judeo-Christian Bible; Jon lacks any verifiable, recognized authority to teach - such recognized authority coming from an established secular or religious academic institution or Christian denominational governing body."

 

Your debate would have been a non-starter, dear boy. You can't even demonstrate enough facility with Scriptural translation, exegesis or any other of the most basic academic rigors involved in teaching the Bible in a venue where your authority to do so would be recognized even when your assertions were opposed or condemned.

 

See what I mean? Funny thing is, I have legitimate Bible-college (pretty much THE bastion of Evangelical fundamentalism in the USA) time under my belt and have been licensed to preach and teach more than once.

 

You wouldn't even be able to tell the spectators of this little scuffle WHY on Earth they should even believe your version of the story.

 

I've said it before, will say it now and surely will need to break it out again for future idiot trolls...

 

You have no way to prove that you are in any way a recognized authority - so there's no possible way you can assert anything RE: "the god of the Bible", because the best you can do is offer YOUR OPINION.

 

Your opinion on what the Bible says or doesn't say, means or doesn't mean is WORTHLESS. An opinion is not a position acceptable in a debate. Only claims that you attempt to PROVE by a preponderance of factual evidence are acceptable in formal debate. By the way, that means you have more or better answers to a question than your opponent does - it doesn't mean you have EVERY answer and it doesn't mean you know everything.

 

My opinion is that olives are disgusting and should not be food for people. Lots of people disagree. Your opinion is that your accepted version of someone else's version of someone else's version of a god, in a collection of writings that you are not qualified to translate or teach from, is "true".

 

Why should I believe you over against ANY OTHER RANDOM CHRISTIAN who disagrees with you, let alone over against theology that has stood opposed to your idiotic ideas for well over 2,000 Christian-era years and well over 5,000 Judeo-centric years and well over 6,000 Veda-centric years?

 

You can't even tell me why I should listen to you and not a Catholic, or a Jew, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, or a Zoroastrian. Every one of those groups (and their near-countless splinter-groups) have histories and legacies far, far longer than whatever cherry-picking evan-jelly-fish bullshit-factory spat you out.

 

Get your big-boy pants on and come to the Arena with something worth debating, or fuck off already.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, L.B. said:

@duderonomy

 

 

 

 

Define "God", please - to which god are you referring, and on what grounds do you claim to possess authority to proclaim what this god has "obviously" done?
 

 

L.B; 

 

You know I was funnin', right? I'm assuming you know that, and that your response as aimed more at Jon.

I don't want to clog up this thread, but my answer (were I still a Christian) would have been that the God you need defined is the one you rail against.  Your reaction is the proof to the obvious truth of your God-sent delusion, and I don't claim nor do I need 'authority' to 'proclaim' the blah blah blah...but whatever. 

 

I remember when there were more debates here at Ex-C and I do miss reading them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@duderonomy

 

Of course I know you were kidding - I figured @Jon the Christard troll was lurking, so I posted an answer to you that showed him how a debate actually works.

 

I know all about the "if you react strongly to my stupid suggestions about invisible men and magic fruit and talking snakes, then it's because in your heart you really believe it" canard.

 

I live with a person trapped in the circular, maddening hamster habitat of a fundy Christard worldview. That response is sometimes her only defense against actually having to assess those idiotic beliefs honestly, which she won't do, because she needs a magical Sky Daddy to make up for her asshole of a real one.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now