The One True God as Described in the Christian Bible Exists

AFFIRMATIVE CASE CONTENTION 1: THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE CAN ONLY BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN A BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW. Not only has my opponent dropped this contention in the previous round, but in this round, he has not even addressed the fact that he did so. He merely dismisses it by saying, “so let’s dispense with the drop claim. ” No, I will not dispense with it, and neither should the audience. The face that my opponent completely ignored half my case in the first round is of the utmost significance, and it is enough for me to win this debate. However, even though my opponent makes no effort to refute the drop claim, he does make various other arguments only tenuously related to the matter at hand. I will deal with those, as well as the arguments on the subject of Logic, in the negative case section. CONTENTION 3: MORALITY CAN ONLY BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN A BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW It turns out that my opponent has not ignored half my case. He has ignored two-thirds of it. In the last round, I argued that morality has no foundation in any worldview outside the Christian one. This contention was supported by several Bible citations as well as a coherent analysis of why the atheist cannot justify morality’s existence. This is an extremely important argument, because it means that the only way that my opponent can possibly win this argument is to concede that morality does not exist, which is clearly absurd. However, where does my opponent address it? He doesn’t. In fact he barely even acknowledges its existence. If you just read my opponent’s last argument by itself you might have no idea that I had a third contention. But I do have a third contention. And my opponent has ignored it like my first one. Given these facts, the conclusion is apparent and unavoidable: The resolution must be affirmed. Also, I would like to point out that not only has my opponent failed to address the vast majority of my case, but he has also provided no constructive case of his own. It is simply unacceptable for him to sit back and criticize my arguments (that is, the ones he bothers to address), all while completely ignoring his obligation to offer a constructive case. NEGATIVE CASE My opponent spends the vast majority of his argument in this round talking about uniformitarianism. He talks on and on about the origins of uniformitarianism, about why it was formulated, when it was formulated. But in all his lecturing, he entirely misses the point. Let me make it clear that I am not arguing for uniformitarianism. I am arguing for uniformity. There is a difference. In fact, there is a vast difference. As my opponent spend such an extent of his time pontificating on the subject, I will not bother to define uniformitarianism again. My opponent has sufficiently accomplished that. However, uniformity is most emphatically not uniformitarianism. Uniformity is simply the basic idea that if gravity applies in Virginia, it will apply in the same manner in Colorado as well. This is one of Science’s foundational tenets; as I have argued before, Science would be useless without it. Galileo’s famous experiment in which he dropped the two balls of different weights from the top of the tower proves nothing unless you assume that gravity was effecting both balls in the same manner. And so it becomes clear that all my opponent’s preaching on the detriments of uniformitarianism is a complete non sequitir; totally unrelated to the matter at hand. I concur with my opponent in that uniformitarianism is indeed an invalid theory, although this is ironic, because it is the foundation of all the arguments that supposedly prove the Earth is millions of year old, which I would assume my opponent accepts. However, uniformity remains completely valid. And it impossibility in the atheistic worldview remains completely unaddressed by my opponent, along with so many of my other arguments. My opponent goes on to claim that uniformity is impossible with the Biblical worldview. Since he does absolutely nothing to address the arguments I have already made proving the exact opposite, I will focus on refuting his own arguments, which he summarizes as follows: “Quite simply if the bible plainly teaches uniformity as per the claim, why is that the Christian culture of the Late middle ages had:1) A non uniform cosmology2) A view of cosmology consistent with Platonism not Newton. 3) A strong belief in astrology and that the stars and planets were spiritual not material beings. And in fact remnants of astrotheology particularly in art. 4) A supernatural view of causation. ” Even assuming that all these claims are true, which he has not proven, there is one simple answer to them all: THIS IS NOT THE MIDDLE AGES. Simply because some Christians believed some things in the Middle Ages does not mean those things are accepted by modern Christians. Nor does it mean those things are suggested by a valid Biblical worldview, which they are not. In short, my opponent has committed the straw man fallacy. He has constructed a bunch of arguments that I have not made and that are not supported by the Bible properly understood, and attacked those instead of addressing the real arguments at issue, which I have already made in my constructive case. A caveat: The fourth point my opponent makes, that God causes and holds together everything, is in fact true and supported by the Bible. However, it does not prove that the Biblical worldview has no foundation for uniformity, as my opponent claims. In conclusion, the three things that my opponent claims to have been shown so far have either not been shown or shown to be true but irrelevant. I have shown that my opponent has simply disregarded the vast majority of my case, as well as refuting every single one of his arguments, leaving the only available conclusion: The One True God as described in the Christian Bible Exists.