Any topic!

I understand that the bible speaks of God and his aspects. I never said that it didn't speak of God or omniscience. I stated that it is self-contradictory. If God knows the past, present and future then how do we have free will? If God knows what will happen then it must be pre-determined but if everything is predetermined then the Bible has been self-contradicted since it also says that we have free will. The Bible is not evidence of God. The Bible is evidence of a bunch of people writing stories about prophets and God with multiple inconsistencies. The Bible has been proven to contain inconsistencies and even Christians and Jews admit to this. In the Bible story regarding Noah's Arc, the first thing it says is that Noah brought in two of every animal. On the next page of the story it says that Noah brought in 7 of every Kosher animal and 2 of every non-Kosher animal. Is this not an inconsistency? The Bible also has many errors that have been scientifically proven which I will source. My opponent states that the validity of the Bible is true because the existence of God is true. This argument is invalid and has no impact upon the resolution of the debate. We are debating about whether God exists not the Bible. Since God is not proven to be a fact you cannot use God as evidence for the Bible being true. Since stating that God is not omnipotent is not evidence of God, I will make this response short. I'm not sure that my opponent understand what they have quoted. What they have quoted is that omnipotence must stand for an attribute. I agree with the common definition of omnipotence which is: all powerful. This is an insufficient rebuttal since you haven't answered what would happen in my scenarios directly. Regarding God's properties, again, this is a poor argument for the existence of God. Since you are arguing in terms of the christian God - you do know what God looks like nor do you know what he can and can't do. God's properties are unknown to us according to Christianity and Judaism. Yes, we have stain glass windows of Jesus and various other pictures of Jesus and the trinity. However, it is highly unlikely that these pictures contain any accuracy at all. It is probable that Jesus was black and that the only reason that we portray him as white is because of societies racism. Nobody has any evidence of seeing God who is alive today to provide us with it. Therefore, it is inadequate to suggest that God exists because he has properties. It appears that my opponent has referred back to omnipotence again. I do not want to go into to much detail because (as previously said) this isn't actually evidence for God's existence alone. I never that the laws of infinite are non-existent. I just said that it is impossible for a living thing to have infinite power, knowledge and love. I wasn't questioning God's existence with this particular argument. I was questioning God's power. My opponent has avoided my point entirely regarding the paradox and has just stated that God exists because of his own power. Again, I will refer back to my argument regarding God's omniscience. My opponent concedes that God has infinite knowledge. If God has infinite knowledge then God knows everything. If God knows everything then God knows both past, present and future. If God knows the future then the future must be determined. If the future is determined then we have no free will. If God has infinite knowledge (as described in Christianity), then how can we also have free will (as the Bible describes). This proves that the Bible is self-contradictory and supports my argument regarding the Bibles credibility. My opponent seems to think that definition is a form of proof. The definition that he encompasses all things does not prove that God exists and is omnipresent, all it proves is that Christians believe this. Summary My opponent has tried to be clever with their argument regarding the definition of existent however all they have done is two things: a) Lost the conduct point for unfairly trying to debate regarding false definitions. b) Since my opponent has indirectly provided a definition of existence that require God to exist as a being in the Bible, all I have to do is reject the definition since I never accepted to that definition in this debate. I would like to thank my opponent for an enjoyable debate and to next time include definitions in their opening argument because otherwise the definition can easily be rejected. My opponent's definition has been rejected and their arguments have been successfully refuted. My opponent has been unable to fulfill their burden of proof and therefore con has won the debate! Vote Con! Sources http://www.thethinkingatheist.com... http://www.debate.org...