Religious texts are valid forms of evidence when advocating for the validity of a religion.

Everything he stated was civil and well thought out. That said, I see some logical fallacies I would like addressed. Especially concerning the use of biblical verses to strengthen his argument in a debate on whether or not religious texts are valid in a debate about the validity of a religion. The chief logical fallacy my opponent has made seems to lie in the definition of a "miracle". Without a proper understanding of what constitutes a miracle, it is too easy to overstate the strength of arguments made for religious documents based on so called miracles. Merriam-Webster defines a miracle as something supernatural or brought on by divine intervention (S1). It is imperative that we realize a literal miracle involves something that cannot be explained by science because it does not adhere to laws of nature. With regards to the biblical prophecies my opponent mentioned: 1. There is almost nothing prophetical in nature about the first two texts listed. They are non-specific instances of poetry that can be loosely quoted by a dying man some years later, but that does not make the dying man a messiah. As for the third scripture, it is yet again vague in nature, only resembling the crucifixion through its description of Jerusalem mourning for a man "they have pierced. " More importantly, there is very little evidence to support the crucifixion of Christ outside of the bible anyway ("outside of the bible" being the point of this very debate). Christian scholars have a few ancient historians of biblical times they like to point to, despite how unreliable ancient historians are for specifics due to strong biases pervading their works and the second-hand nature of their accounts (S2). Flavius Josephus, for example, is commonly quoted for his account of the crucifixion. This account, however, is widely accused of having been forged by the church early on to establish power (S3). 2. This text actually refers to someone to be "ruler in Israel. " The biblical Jesus never ruled anything in Israel. Furthermore, the passage you mentioned actually goes on to discuss other things that never came true. Many Israelites never made it back home as verse 3 said would happen. The Israelites that did get to return home did so well before the birth of the biblical Jesus. And Babylon actually wasted Assyria in battle some years later, Israel never did. If Micah were making a truly miraculous prophecy, every detail must be correct AND there should be more details regarding the conditions. Why not specify the exact date of his birth? The time of day? The weather conditions? Well, if he had, then the trivial nature of his predictions would be further exposed. 3. The ONLY sources of evidence for the existence of King Josiah are from the bible. Can we assume something is factually accurate just because it agrees with itself in one specific instance? This is the exact purpose of this debate. My opponent has proven my point here by using evidence from the bible that cannot be substantiated by anything else but other scriptures in the bible. This is why arguments for "why the bible can be used as credible evidence for Christianity" fall flat. If I make a prediction in a written document then later in the same document say that it came true, has something miraculous happened? Of course not. This is just another instance of the bible being an elaborate work of fiction that is able to fool some people into accepting it as literal truth due to its depth and volume. With regards to the scholars my opponent mentioned: My opponent is correct, I would like to go by "archaeology and actual discoveries," that's the purpose of this debate. In doing this, the bible is not substantiated as a strong source of evidence for Christianity. Scholars like the ones my opponent mentioned have extreme discrepancies amongst their ranks regarding many different parts of the bible. Each scholar seems to have their own set of interpretations and beliefs. In fact, one of the few things they typically all agree on is that the bible has A LOT of historical inaccuracies and contradictions (S4). Therefore, texts from it cannot be used to strengthen the argument for Christianity. With regards to science in the bible: Regrettably, I feel this is the strongest argument opponent made, as it is not wholly dependent on the bible or scholars dedicated to studying it. Still, stating easily observed scientific facts is not enough to validate the entire bible. I won't go through each verse, but lets look at a few. And keep in mind none of these are predictions, as my opponent stated, but instead just statements about things that were already known by many cultures around the world at the time. Isaiah 40:22 actually clearly says "the circle of the earth. " I assume we all agree that the earth is not a flat circle with someone above us. Luke 17:34"36 is not a very impressive accomplishment. Simply traveling west or east a great distance provides sufficient knowledge that the sun sets and rises at different times in different places. The Job scriptures you mentioned simply state that water precipitates from clouds and goes back to do it again. The hydrological cycle is more complex than this, so the write of Job simply realized that it can rain when there's clouds overhead but it can't rain when there's no overcast. While we are looking at science in the bible, it should be noted that there are plenty of scientific impossibilities and inaccuracies in the bible. Aside from the global flood story of genesis, there's the stationary earth in 1 Samuels 2:8 and Psalms 93:1, the misidentification of stars and moons and their properties in Genesis 1:16 and Isaiah 13:10, and many different indications of a flat earth throughout many different old testament passages. (S5 for this whole paragraph). A divinely inspired text should not have any disagreements with science or logic, yet the bible is riddled with them. On the Quran: Your explanation of the Quran is a clear indicator of the misunderstanding of what a miracle actually is. As I already defined, it is something supernatural in nature. It cannot be explained by science because it is supernatural. The very fact that you were able to explain the mathematical anomaly associated with the Quran scriptures is what proves it is not miraculous. Just because someone was able to cleverly format the scriptures of the Quran with mathematics does not prove it is a miraculous text that is permissible as evidence which supports Islam as a proven worldview. Conclusion: I have defined what a miracle actually is because my opponent incorrectly attributed naturally occurring things to miracles. I went through and refuted each point my opponent raised to indicate a religious text (the bible in one instance and the Quran in the other) is a miracle. I pointed out that a divinely inspired text should have no logical contradictions or scientific inaccuracies. The onus is now on my opponent to explain why a religious text is allowed to have contradictions and inaccuracies and still be cited as credible evidence. My opponent should also keep in mind that the purpose of this debate is to illustrate why a religious text can or cannot be used to factually prove its own religious doctrine. Quoting scriptures does very little (or nothing at all) to further the debate. (S1) . https://www.merriam-webster.com... (S2) . http://history-world.org... (S3) . http://www.strangenotions.com... (S4) . https://www.quora.com... (S5) . http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com...