The Biblical God Created Earthly Life

Pro, Pro, Pro... You agreed to the definitions by accepting this debate, and the definition of life is "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic matter." Since the bible is a work of fiction, and life is nonfictional, the bible's assertion that one of its fictional characters created the nonfictional concept of life is a truth claim that requires external (outside of the bible) verification. Pro has ignored this argument. Pro presses on: "Your presuppositions put forth in the phrase 'did the biblical god create earthly life?' make any discussion of the origin of the actual earth (a commonly debated topic) irrelevant to this argument." My response: 1. I never asked the question "Did the biblical god create earthly life?" instead, Pro did...Pro has supported the assertion that the biblical god created earthly life, simply because it says so in the bible; I've rejected the existence of this god. 2. Yeah, the origin of the earth is irrelevant to whether or not god created earthly life...though I would also reject the claim that god played some part in the earth's formation. Pro continues mistaking: "To begin a question with 'did the biblical god', one must presuppose the existence of a biblical god and his ability to act (the 'did' part)." My response: I have never asked this question...check the debate. Pro has dishonestly claimed that I have asked this question. Also, merely asking a question about an agent DOES NOT presuppose the existence of the agent. Did the tooth fairy create earthly life? No, because the tooth fairy isn't real and life is. Either way, I've never asked the question that Pro claims that I have. Pro marinates in their dishonesty: "So you concede the existence of this biblical god by merely putting him forth as an agent in your initial question." My response: I NEVER asked that question, Pro...you did! Pro provides an example: "'Did mom move my skateboard?' Random, I know, but demonstrates that the question presupposes that mom exists and that she an agent/acts or does. My response: No! If mom doesn't exist, the the answer to this question is no, mom did not move my skateboard; you don't need to presuppose to inquire about a truth claim. So, just by using a concept in a question DOES NOT presuppose its existence. Did the one-sided polygon create earthly life? No, one sided polygons don't exist, so they couldn't have done anything. Pro dodges my arguments: "The only way a biblical god, which we both accept exist (for the sake of our argument)..." My response: AGAIN! The definitions in this debate define god as the creator of the universe. Well, much like a one-sided polygon is impossible, so is the creator of a universe that wasn't created. Without the universe, there is no time, and without time, there is no temporal process like creation. You keep dodging this point Pro. I do not accept the existence of the biblical god, because the bible is a work of fiction, and the universe is not a work of fiction. Even if the bible mentioned a one-sided polygon, it wouldn't amount to that one-sided polygon's existence. Pro, please pay attention. The universe is a real thing, the earth is a real thing, and life is a real thing given the agreed to definitions in this debate. The bible is a fictional source that happens to reference these real things in a fictional way. We have no reason to believe that the fictional claim "god created earthly life" has any impact on these very real concepts. Pro starts to get relevant: "So now all that remains is to validate the act of creating life on earth." My response: Go ahead... Pro: "The bible (source no.1) states clearly that God, created all things (earth and life, included) in Genesis." My response: Ok, well the universe wasn't created, therefore, god in this debate doesn't exist, and the claim of Genesis is errant. So Pro, how did something that doesn't exist/never has existed create all things? Also, as I've stated, the earth and life are real concepts, so this a truth claim from a fictional work. Truth claims require a mechanistic explanation, and Pro has not provided us with that. Pro, the planet on which we live, the agreed definition of earth in this debate, isn't the "earth" referenced in the bible. The bible's reference to earth is FICTIONAL, and the definition of earth in this debate is real. Pro, the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic matter, the agreed definition of life in this debate, isn't the "life" referenced in the bible. The bible's reference to life is FICTIONAL, and the definition of life in this debate is real. My aspirations are irrelevant Pro. Our mutual agreement on the terms of the resolution require Pro to affirm that god had a role in the creation of the defined term "life," the very real condition that separates organisms form inorganic matter. Pro is not attempting to meet their burden. I reject this resolution, because the bible does not actually talk about life within this debate...the bible merely uses the word life as a fictional reference to the very real concept.