The garden of Eden exist

What did my opponent have to prove in this debate? Well, let's ask him. In round one he states: "Pro will have to prove that the garden of Eden, described in Genesis, actual exist (on Earth), and holds some truths as described in the bible." So there were two elements pro had to prove: 1. The Garden of Eden, as described in Genesis, actually existed 2. That what the Bible said about the garden was somewhat true Pro needed to prove BOTH in order to win the debate. What my opponent has said is that in theory, people might have farmed the land under the Persian Gulf before the dawn of civilisation. I agree this is a possibility. What he then needed to prove was that this land was the land described in Genesis. To "prove" that he cited the actual location of two rivers, and hypothesized two more. I had no fewer than ten responses to this, the one piece of analysis he has given. First I stated that it is evidence that makes the story true, not the story itself. My opponent could not tell you what evidence he had to support his claim that there were, in fact, two people living under the Persian Gulf. Secondly, I explained how stories can be made up to teach others moral lessons. My opponent could not tell you why the story of Genesis could not have been just made up. Thirdly, I told you that stories change over time, so who knows if it really originally said "four" rivers or "five" rivers. My opponent could not demonstrate the veracity of the text. Fourth, I told you that modern interpretations of a limited number of words may have radically different meanings. My opponent could not show you that his interpretation was consistent with the original interpretation. Fifth, I told you that there are several places that are candidates under that logic, particularly if rivers can be hypothesized (three major rivers currently flow into the Black Sea, after all). My opponent never explained why this particular location is the garden and the others aren't. Sixth, I told you that the Tigris and Euphrates do not flow into one river. My opponent tried to point you to a map showing that they do, but do not be deceived - the Tigris and Euphrates rivers flow into a river delta that leads to the Gulf. Only the widest points of the two rivers are depicted on the map my opponent has displayed, which is as inaccurate as saying that the Nile doesn't have a delta. In short - they meet, but only after they have already split into a delta. Seventh, my opponent did not provide evidence for the rivers he hypothesised. Eighth, that he is confusing his narrative with Noah's. He tried to respond by saying that it wasn't the flood that kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden. If so, then he needs to show what did (since he denies the fantastical elements of the story ie God) and why Noah was in the garden (ie Persian Gulf) when it was flooded (since the bible states he wasn't). Ninth, if he puts all these events long before hunter gatherers and global migration, then he isn't talking about "shortly before civilisation" any more. Since he linked civilisation's growth to the location of the garden of Eden in round two, he has admitted that the premise on which he put his location is false. Rather, he is talking about when human fossils first came about, about 250,000 years ago. At that point, the sea level was about the same as today [1] contradicting his whole theory. Tenth, I said that the story is clearly fantastical in nature, so the location might as well be fantastical too. It would be the most consistent application. To all of this analysis, my opponent had no good response. So did pro meet his burden of proof? 1. "The Garden of Eden, as described in Genesis, actually existed" <- he showed that it is possible for a garden to have existed in a place called Eden, but not that the Garden as described in Genesis, with its supernatural trees and walking serpents. At best he showed that the location may correlate with the description given in Genesis, but even that I doubt. 2. "That what the Bible said about the garden was somewhat true" <- this presupposes that the garden existed. Did he show that anything the Bible said about the garden is even somewhat true? No. I showed that the narrative in the Bible is wholly fantastical, and my opponent even admitted that the fantastical elements are not true. By his own admission, therefore, he lost that one. What did I need to prove? In round one my opponent states: "Con will have to disprove the existence of the garden of Eden, and show that the bible holds no truths about it, it is entirely false and made up." Or put another way: 1. Disprove ("is entirely false" is pretty much the same thing) 2. Show it holds no truths in the Bible 3. Made up What I have done is pointed out numerous inconsistencies and gaps in pro's theory. Since pro's case has been largely geographical I have stuck to geographical arguments, and it wouldn't be fair to bring up new stuff this late. It is entirely false, even on my opponent's own terms, that the Persian Gulf is a candidate for the Garden of Eden. First, you would have to ignore all the fantastical elements. Second, you would have to hypothesize river flows, which don't even match to the time period you're talking about. Third, you'd assume that the story hasn't changed over time. And so on and so forth. There is a chance of precisely 0% that all of these come together in such a way that agrees with both the narrative and known geographical history. Therefore I have shown that: 1. Nothing about the narrative is true 2. The theory about the location of the garden is probably not true, even supposing that the narrative was true Recall that my opponent has not met his burden of proof. Do I meet my burden of proof? Let's investigate: 1. Disprove <- Yes, I disproved my opponent's conception of the Garden of Eden, as well as the possibility that what my opponent conceives as the Garden could, in fact, be the garden. I also gave hard evidence the story has warped and changed over time, so the most likely scenario is that there never was a Garden of Eden. 2. Show it holds no truths in the Bible <- Pro admitted this (see my second point on his burden of proof). 3. Made up <- Yes. If it is not true, then it is made up. I think the choice is clear. Vote Con. Sources 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...