Life on earth has no intrinsic value.

*sigh* maddiezieglerfan.... you're killing me. I did not post this debate to argue religion or the existence of God. maddiezieglerfan, do you know whether I am a Christian or a believer or not? I can answer that question for you. You don't know, because I have been sure to not indicate whether I am or not in order to save this debate from subjective biases. We should and can debate on the topic on whether Life on earth has any intrinsic value without launching into rhetoric about salvaging my immortal soul. You assume because I've posted this debate that I am not Christian. How do you know that I am not saved and this is just me exercising my debate skills and trying to capture the oppositions point of view? You also have mis-interpreted my instruction to "assume". When I said assume, I meant "pretend", meaning lets pretend for a minute that God did not exist. Your rebuttal is then, "My opponent seems to forget that without God, there would be no people at all. " I did not forget that from Christian perspective, that God is ultimate creator. What I was asking you to do was to set aside the preaching and the bible for one moment and just "imagine" human beings being on earth and God not existing. Imagine if the theory of evolution were actually true. I am not asking you to believe in it. You obviously don't. But for the sake of saving this debate, I was asking you to pretend for a second. You are either incapable or unwilling to do so. Which means this debate will be about God and the bible, which is fine.. but I was hoping to debate those items at another time. So I begin my argument. Faith = Belief , as in to believe. Knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. If you know something, there is no need to believe in it. Ex: You've heard someone say "I know the sun will rise tomorrow" Yet it would strike you odd if someone said "I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow" . You know how to drive a car, you don't have faith in how to drive a car if you know how to drive one. You may have "confidence" which is something entirely different. You are pretty fond for the bible so If my example does not convince you of this Faith is different from Knowledge premise, then lets take it from Jesus: John 20:29 ; Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. Im sure you that you remember the story in the bible from which this versed is derived. To paraphrase. Thomas did not believe Jesus had been resurrected until he put his fingers through Jesus' wounds. The only way for Thomas to have KNOWN (have knowledge of) whether Jesus had risen from the dead is to see Jesus walking around with his own two eyes. Jesus however said: "Blessed are those who HAVE NOT seen and yet have believed." This is to say that those who had FAITH in the fact that Jesus had risen, even while they had no way of KNOWING THAT he did. So there you have it maddiezieglerfan. You are faithful. You have faith in God, the bible, and in his son Jesus Christ..... our savior. But you don't KNOW anything. You believe in the authority of the bible and the Lord God, and because you believe, you are promised and will obtain eternal life. John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever BELIEVES in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. God is giving you a chance at eternal life if you decide to BELIEVE that his son Jesus Christ died for your sins. This is of course a challenge because the devil or "Satan" wishes to influence you to NOT believe in Jesus... so you get can be with him in hell presumably . So the challenge and the fight over all of our souls is for us to have FAITH, ... in spite of not being able to see readily with our own yes any proof of God or Jesus in modern times. Also not committing a bunch of sins as outlined in the bible. If we KNEW (or had KNOWLEDGE of) of Jesus being our savior, as in modern times (today) and he came and spoke with us, provided us verification that he was Jesus by performing a couple of miracles (forget considerations of the antichrist for this argument), then there would be no need for FAITH. Only obedience. We would at the very least KNOW he exists. I make this whole argument just to confront the wide and wild targets of your next argument against this assertion: Faith does not equal knowledge. You don't know anything, but you believe in God, Jesus , and the bible. and if you claim to know, as in have actual knowledge of, then you don't have faith. Here is why I make this assertion. You said in your last argument "In debate you need to have fact, and all of my proof comes from the Bible" Well...." How do you know that the bible from which you got your proof isn't tainted by the devil?" because God told you so? How do you know that when you pray to God, the devil isn't intercepting your messages and pretending to be God? According to Christianity ...he of course wanted to be God which is what got him in hell in the first place. Isn't the devil a liar? How do you know that he's not lying to you? and making you believe that your getting instructions from God and not him? This silly question is of course rhetorical, but the point being is that you don't know anything and you HAVE NO FACTS. You have FAITH. Explicitly and by your own admission, your "proof" being in the Bible. But this is a bad argument or at the very least, poor proof. Which version of the bible should I seek proof from? The following is a list of Bible's that are currently in existence. From which bible do you contend that I seek authority from or in which your find your proofs and facts? King James Version (KJV) New International Version (NIV) New American Standard Bible (NASB) New King James Version (NKJV) English Standard Version (ESV) New Living Translation (NLT) Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) New Century Version (NCV) New English Bible (NEB) American Standard Version (ASV) Good News Bible (GNB) / Today"s English Version (TEV) Amplified Bible (AMP) Today"s New International Version (TNIV) New English Translation (NET) Revised Standard Version (RSV) Contemporary English Version (CEV) God"s Word Translation (GW) Common English Bible (CEB) New International Readers Version (NIrV) Easy-To-Read Version (ERV) Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) Bible in Basic English (BBE) 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) World English Bible (WEB) Revised English Bible (REB) Jerusalem Bible (JB) New American Bible (NAB) The Living Bible (TLB) The Message (MSG) Young's Literal Translation (YLT) The Bishops' Bible Douay-Rheims Version (DRV) Tyndale Bible Geneva Bible This is only to name a few. Also I assure you, they DO NOT all say the same thing. Don't make me prove it to you. So ... from which of these bibles, in which each many say something different than the other, should I find my proof? You may rebut here that all of these bibles fundamentally have the same content however, you would be wrong. Some of these bibles do acknowledge Jesus, but refuse to acknowledge him as a savior of our sins. The constituents who read these bibles regards themselves as Christians , just as you do. But you wouldn't say that you two are the same would you? I take it further, why should I assume that any of these bibles have any kind of proof at all? Couldn't some "evil doer" go to Fedex and make an exact copy of the King James Version or NIV version of the bible (the most popular in the U.S) and change some important words for their own benefit and distribute them to the masses? Don't you think it hasn't happen already? In Jesus' day, the were no copy machines. Every copy of a "the bible" was hand written over long periods of time. Today not all Christians agree about everything that in the bible, because their versions are different from other Christians. In the age of handwriting-copies of the bible, do you not think that it is possible someone who believes in God just as much as you do, changed some words in the bible because he/she didn't like something in it? Being familiar with the Christian response in this, you would refute this possibility by claiming God's omnipotence and his ultimate protection of the words in the bible. Perhaps referring to the book of "Revelations" curse where people who add or remove things from the bible will be dealt with. My whole point being is what do you truly know? You can only believe and that is enough in Christianity. You can believe and act accordingly and obediently to those beliefs and be given eternal peace and salvation. But you KNOW nothing. You cannot argue what you do not know. You may tell me... "Yes Jesus loves me" till the sky turns red, and when I ask " How do you know Jesus loves you" You can reply "cuz the Bible tells me so". But if I ask you: 1. Which version of the bible? 2. How old is the bible? 3. How many persons wrote in the bible? 4. How did they make copies of the bible in ancient times? 5. Why were some books put in the bible and other left out? 6. Who made those decision? Who gave them the authority to make that decision? 7. Why are their contradictions between books in the bible. 8. What was the original language that bible was translated from? Was the translation done accurately. Chances are you don't know the practical answers to these questions beyond "divine intervention" or that " God protected the the bible for 2000 years from being messed with, it is perfect" But it doesn't matter that you do not know. You have faith. Therefore you do not need to know. However, you DO need have knowledge to make a valid arguement. Lets say I have proof that there is flying monster behind the moon. I saw it on the internet. Does that suffice as proof for you? I imagine that it does not. Why then would the bible suffice as proof for those who do not have the same faith as you?