The Instigator
Pro (for)
16 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Belief in God is irrational

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,842 times Debate No: 21482
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)




First round for acceptance, followed by opening statements.

The contention is that believing in the Christian God is irrational.

Christian God:
As depicted in the Old and New Testaments

a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment.

Should be a fun first debate.


I thank the Pro side for creating this debate. It should prove interesting, considering I am a complete anti-theist.

I assume the arguments start round two, so I will not begin with anything.
Debate Round No. 1


First off I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate, even know he is an anti-theist. Should make for some interesting thoughts.

First off, what is an irrational thought? "

In this case, a belief is irrational if it is "based on evidence (or lack thereof) /reasoning that does not adequately justify the belief" or
"characterized by lack of logic; senseless or unreasonable"

If my opponent would like to add or change the definition of irrational, I'd be more than open to that.

Let's try and not get too caught up on semantics in this, like so many debates do. Also, let's try and keep the epistemological aspect in this debate to a minimum. I am by know means a philosopher trying to prove what is truth, knowledge, reasonable vs unreasonable, etc,etc.

The debate: a belief in the Christian God is irrational.

Opening statements:

The belief in the Christian God, like most Gods, requires a certain suspension of disbelief in order to maintain optimistic consistency within. There are certain elements in this being's character that a believer either has to
A: choose to ignore and live in blissful ignorance, or
B: find a way to justify these flaws and irrationalities to uphold one's belief and faith. Examples: "God has our best interests at heart/ it's all part of God's plan" or submit to the notion that the human mind in incapable of grasping God's greatness, as depicted in Milton's Paradise Lost.

My arguments will be based on what is known of this being, not what potentially is unknown.

The majority of what we know about this being is predicated upon the Bible and its subsequent teachings. I contend that any rational human being will be able to read such a works, take into account the given time period, the multiple translations (from Koine Greek and so on), and conclude that these are merely a collection of stories with no real historical or metaphysical value. Given the lack of evidence in establishing any sort of validity in the Bible, one can conclude that believing biblical stories is irrational. Furthermore, subsequently believing in the Christian God as an irrational thought, precedes the former assertion that all that is known of this God is predicated upon the Bible and nothing else.
Assertion #1. The Bible is the word of God
Assertion #2. The Bible is a fallacious work of fiction by man, for man.
Conclusion: Believing that the Christian God exists is an irrational thought because of the lack of sound evidence supporting it due to the assertions above.

I contend that assertion #1 is preposterous for a couple of reasons:

#1. Multiple inconsistencies and contradictions throughout the Bible: an omniscient being would not either change his mind, or act in such a way as to contradict himself this much leaving so much room for scrutiny. Also, his omniscience would allow him to fully know what his creation (us humans), would have learned in the centuries to come and could then in turn disallow for such inconsistencies and contradictions. I'll provide examples later. Logical explanation: human error in the writings based on personal belief of what this God is.
Short list of contradictions:

#2. Belief in this specific God (the Christian God) is dependent upon the environment in which you are raised. Although a priori argument, such that belief is deemed true without any proof or experience. Without the indoctrination (by most parents/caregivers), their faith remains either non-existent, for they do not know such a thing exists, while arguing in the posteriori.
Paraphrased: if it weren't for your parents or first experience with the notion of the Christian God, no such thing would or could exist in one's mind. It's not as though prior to this celestial epiphany we already felt a connection to a higher power without knowing what it is. If you were born in Afghanistan chances are you would believe in Allah; Jerusalem, Yahweh; the numerous Gods one would believe if born in India, etc.etc. Again, I content that belief if this one specific Christian God, and the rejection all others, is irrational. No evidence adequately justifies belief in the Christian God as being true, and all others Gods being false.

Hypothetical situation: we live in a country where everyone believes in a flying unicorn as their God. We are now debating on, and I contend that the belief in the Christian God is irrational. Believers of the flying unicorn would whole-heartedly agree based on some of the evidence put forth here. This is the same, just interchange which God one believes in.
Conclusion: belief in a specific God, as the one true God, is irrational.

#3. The stories themselves that contradict evidence known to us today. For example, the belief that the God created the earth, and then humans thereafter a mere 6,000 years ago (as depicted in Genesis), contradicts what is empirically known to us today. We now know that the earth in roughly 4.5 billion years old, with multiple species coming before us. And of course, our evolutionary process, which contradicts that of Adam and Eve. Additionally, God's punishment of Jonah in making him live in the whale. I again, contend that no rational human being can lower themselves to such beliefs as deemed true in the Bible, as the word and actions of God (and as we know, there are MANY stories, much more ridiculous than this in the Bible). Likewise, why would a perfect being create such an imperfect world. Poorly designed earth and poorly designed species. Either this God is incredibly lazy, capricious, clumsy, wasteful, cruel, callous, or a mix of each OR such a being does not exist.

Even the theists that believe the earth is approximately 100,000 years old (Francis Collins for example), it makes no difference. If anything it further gives strength to the argument of irrationality. One would have to believe that that for 98,000 years, as men were killing each other over land, raping each other, essentially living lives of despair, sacrifice, pain and misery, largely due to believing in the "wrong" God as proposed in the times, the Christian God (the true God), was standing there watching with complete and utter indifference.
"Oh look at that, there go those humans I created killing each other over false belief. Should I intervene? Nah." For he has the power to intervene, but chose not to. And then, in the most deserted land, to the most illiterate, barbaric, superstitious people in the world, God decides to show himself by sending his only son…only to be killed sometime thereafter. This is what all theists of Christianity have to believe, for which I argue is irrational. The reasons for this belief in their God is not adequately justified, or reasonable. Until a time comes wherein real, logical, and justified evidence is brought forth, my original contention will remain truthful.

I'll close like I started: this suspension of disbelief is like a movie gone wrong. The only different between a theist who believes in a God and myself is that I am able to separate reality from fantasy. At some point we've all got to hit stop and eject.




Not logical or reasonable.

adjective. unreasonable - surd - illogical
noun. surd

I only posted this definition to display that I do not believe in God. I am only trying to prove that a God is, in fact, supported by logic and reason.

My case, while rather simple and short, will completely undermine Pros argument through simple logic.

You seem like an intelligent person, I am sure that you have seen this before. However, I hope to make it clear so that all viewers get it.


1. It is possible that God exists.

Explanation: A possibility of God (as defined in the New and Old Testaments as "The Creator and Ruler of the universe and Source of all moral authority, the Supreme Maximal Being.") is not a ridiculous one. While one might claim that a "higher being" is illogical, numerous sources (below) indicate that God does, in fact, exist. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, considered the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Tanakh ever found. MANY reputable historians agree that the authenticity of these documents alone sheds a great deal of light on the existence of a monotheistic God, seeing that they date back to before 10 C.E. So you can at least agree that a POSSIBILITY of God is not out of reason.

2. If it is possible that God exists, than God exists in some hypothetical situations.

Explanation: Well, this claim is self explanatory. Since it is possible that He exists, he MUST exist in some hypothetical situations.

3. If God exists in some hypothetical situations, than He exists in all hypothetical situations.

Explanation: This one might be a little hard to grasp. However, since God is defined as Maximally Great (as he is in the definition), than He is "perfect, the greatest possible." (according to the definition of Maximal from the sources below.) So if God is POSSIBLE IN SOME HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS, than He HAS TO BE POSSIBLE IN ALL, or else He is imperfect, which, according to His definition, He can't be. See, it's simple logic!

4. If God exists in all hypothetical situations, than he exists in the current situation.

Explanation: Well, if every hypothetical situation literally means EVERY possibility, than it must entail the real world situation. Again, simple logic.

5. If God exists in the current situation, than God exists.

Explanation: None needed.

So as you can see, the idea of a God is completely rational and reasonable, and is easily supported by logic.
Debate Round No. 2


I'd first like to apologize in advance for the philosophical density of this post, however, it's only fair that a philosophical argument begets a philosophical response (in much more laymen terms for I am by no means a student of philosophy).
*I will at times refer to the Ontological Argument as OA

The Ontological Argument for the existence of God and its rationality is an interesting topic for sure, but not an overly difficult one to rebut. Even in the 11th century it was invalidated by Anselm's own, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, which I will explain later.

This priori argument wherein its premises are predicated upon axiomatic truths is arguably Anselm's greatest fault. It assumes that just as we know 1+1=2, we know that God exists. Axioms, as we know, cannot be proved or used to postulate a truth, nor is proving anything's existence via conjecture; in doing so we would be opposing our definitions above on what is logical or rational. Because of this, I will stick with my original contention that not only is the belief if God irrational, the Ontological Argument is too, irrational for believing in the existence of God.

As we know there are many different forms of the OA, however they are all guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.

Let's state the argument again:
1. God is, by definition, the greatest being conceivable.
2. God exists in the mind
3. To exist in both reality and in the mind and greater than to just exist in the mind
Conclusion: God must exist in reality as well as the mind; if God did not, then God would not be the greatest being conceivable.

Fallacy of Equivocation: essentially interchangeably using the same word that has two different meanings

First off, giving an attribute to something does not necessarily means it exists. Just because we are able to construct something in our minds, does not mean it exists in reality. "I am able to construct a 30 foot goose in my mind". Does a 30-foot goose exist? Of course not. Minds do not conceive beings or real entities, they conceive concepts, or in Anselm's case, his mind conceived a concept of a being (God). Another analogy: Just as artists don't draw humans (or whatever), they make drawings of humans. God therefore does not exist in our mind, the concept of God exists in our mind. By Anselm argument, concepts=reality. And this my friends is as irrational as it gets. For example, I'll conceptualize in my brain that the flying unicorn is the greatest God conceivable, and by the Ontological Argument, flying unicorns thereby exist in reality. Ontology by this definition then requires all conceivable superlatives to be real, just as we conceived flying unicorns.
For example:
•This statement is truer than any other statement that has ever been proposed"
•Real truths are truer than statements that are merely true proposition.
•Therefore the above statement is true. The most truthful statement ever, actually.

See the problem with this? This now begs the question: does our ability to conceive something set a limit for what exists?

Kant summarizes this perfectly while criticizing Anselm's OA: "Something can be defined without existing, or be defined while existing; but nothing can be defined as existing, by defining it into existence"

•Sound arguments have sound premises.
•The Ontolological Argument has zero sound premises.
•Therefore the OA is unsound or irrational.

Again back to Anselm and his reliance on equivocation. He takes one term (God), while simultaneously cherry-picking which meaning he wants to attribute to this term.
He does this by defining two Gods
•A: the one that exists in reality
•B: the one that exists in the mind
In point 4 he states, "God who only exists in the mind", but in 5 he makes us think that he's referring to the God that exists in reality.

Let's rephrase it to exemplify this equivocation throughout:
1. Nothing greater than God-A can be imagined.
2. God-B exists.
3. God-A is greater than God-B.
4. If God-A does not exist, then we can imagine something greater than God-B (ie. God-A)
5. However, we cannot imagine something greater than God-A
6. Therefore, God-A exists.

Another problem with Anselm's argument is that he fails to define "greatness". I know we had agreed to keep the semantics to a minimum but this is important. This statement begs the question: why is existing greater than non-existing? This assertion by Anselm (To exist in both reality and in the mind and greater than to just exist in the mind), is predicated upon one's personal opinion. As I stated earlier, trying to prove something through conjecture or axiomatic truths goes against what we defined as logical and or rational. Likewise, the statement "Heaven is better than life on earth". This axiom holds true by many, if not all, theists, but again is predicated upon one's personal opinion. I argue that we cannot prove something's existence via circular logic, like the ontological argument and many other "proofs for God's existence", in a rational way. Just like:
•How do you know God exists?
•Because of the Bible
•How do you the Bible is valid?
•Because it's inspired by and is the word of God.

Another problem with Anselm's argument is that we can conceive a greater God than the biblical God. We can all come up with at least 5 character traits that we would change of the biblical God. This end-all God as described by Anselm argues that it is the greatness of all the Gods/unable to make better. So I beg the question: by virtue of conceptualizing a greater God than the biblical one, does it make my God 2.0 exists in reality? I'll let you decide. This is exactly what Anselm argues/"proves".

Another dilemma Anselm's argument faces is that it can be applied to any being or object conceivable, also as Gaunilo saw it as so:

#1.Flying unicorns are the best creatures conceivable.
#2. Unicorns exist in my mind.
#3. It is more beautiful for flying unicorns to exist in reality, and in my mind, then to just exist in my mind alone.
Conclusion: Flying unicorns thereby exist in reality; if they did not, they wouldn't be the most beautiful creatures conceivable.

I'll allow you think of something in your mind that you want to exist really badly. Does it now exist? Did it appear to you? Was it irrational for you to think that it would?
As any 2nd grader can now figure out, mere belief in something in one's mind, does not necessarily allow it to exist in reality. For such a belief is unequivocally, irrational.


What we've argued so far is that belief in God is irrational by pointing out character/biblical flaws-- to which the Ontological Argument was presented as rational proof for His existence--to which has been subsequently rebutted as irrational.

I await my opponent's rebuttal or new thoughts on the irrationality of believing in the Christian God.



I concede. It's just too hard to fight for something that I am so opposed to!
Debate Round No. 3


I will start my saying I'm rather disappointed in my opponent's renouncement of this debate. Although a self-proclaimed anti-theist, I still feel there is a strong case for the rationality of theism, regardless of the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. We can all agree that hypocrisy is an arduous undertaking, especially in debates of this domain. Nonetheless I will conclude with some further arguments, and close on a lighter note to allow for some much needed excogitation on these contentious grounds.

Although this debate is on the rationality of belief, it has more or less moved towards the existence of God, which I feel is justifiable. Debating the rationality of spirituality would indeed be a futile pursuit. What the debate is grounded on is whether or not we should believe in a God, given our knowledge today. Whether or not a rational human being can look past the arguments set forth, or better yet, provides logical explanations for their beliefs whilst rebutting those set forth by atheists is the overarching question. That was the goal of the debate anyway, which has unfortunately proven inept thus far.

Foundation of this debate:
•For one to rationally believe in God, one must believe in His existence.

•If we can argue that the Christian God does not exist, belief in something that doesn't exist would be deemed irrational.

The majority of these last comments I'll make will ultimately allow for the theists reading to at least ponder the arguments set forth. For it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it (Aristotle), which I believe most theists fail to do by not questioning their beliefs, or by blindly appealing to the authority of their church.

I'll start with the dysteleological argument. This modus tollens is fairly simple to grasp: an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator would not create organisms, the earth, and the universe in such a poor, unintelligent way. The contention is that either God does not exist, or that he does not possess these traits. Which begs the question: why would a perfect God, create such an imperfect world?

Physical flaws of intelligently designed humans:
•In females, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.
•Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death
•The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.
•Humans are terribly inefficient at taking in and utilizing oxygen. The vast majority of O2 is expelled when we exhalate, except in those individuals of superior fitness.
•Susceptible to so many diseases and illness
•Warm bloodedness-> constantly eating
•CO, CH4, CO2-> can't see, taste, or smell. If we breathe these in, we're dead.
•Entertainment complex right in the middle of a sewage system, who would intelligently design this?

Physical flaws of the intelligently designed Earth:
•Most of its surface not fit for human life
•Mostly covered by water which we cannot drink ~70%
•High presence of natural disasters in the few areas that are habitable
•Presence of thousands of diseases, parasites and bacteria which have led to the majority of all deaths in a painful, resentful manner
•99% of all organisms are now extinct

Physical flaws of the universe:
•most planet orbits are unstable
•most places kills life immediately (heat, radiation, cold)
•one-way universe expanding at a rate that eventually it will turn into oblivion
•essentially on a crash course for destruction

Intelligently designed? I think not.

Burden of Proof:
This tends to be a debate in and of itself; who claims the burden of proof? I would argue to say we both do equally. However, as Bertrand Russell once stated: "the burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others." Atheist claims are backed by scientific evidence and by rationally opposing the philosophical arguments to the contrary. Whereas the argument for the existence of God is largely philosophical, or proved via conjecture by not what they do know, but by what we atheists have yet to explain/prove.

We all have existential questions, to which we do not have all the answers to yet. I contend that it is prudent to say that the Christian God does not exist, as all the evidence so far points to this. The most rational time to believe in God would have been in a time when He was first proposed many centuries ago. At that time, the burden of proof was on the skeptic. And after much bloodshed, hangings, beheadings, and exiles for questioning the word and power of God throughout our history, we have finally come to a generation of enlightenment and exponential scientific and social progress. All to which could not have occurred under the iron fist of theism.

Religion was our first attempt at philosophy, science, math…explaining how this seemingly incongruous world of ours works. It, at the time, was rational to believe in a higher power. But in 2012, there are fewer and fewer rational arguments for such a belief. The strongest now being, the ontology of humans, the earth and the universe. As the micro-gaps all close with our ability to know and prove all the things that were once attributes to God (rising sun, tides, planets, laws of physics, natural disasters, health, etc.), the macro-gap reaches it's highest yet (that God provided the grounds for all we know scientifically, and that it was he was the ultimate creator and catalyst to this world). Again I ask, which God is THE correct God, the true God if you will? Are the Zoroastrians right? Dravidiasm? Islam? Judaism/Christianity? Scientology? Wiccans? Jainists? Which religious group is right? This is why I contend that the belief in the CHRISTIAN God is irrational. There is no proof or reason to believe that this God is the one, other than bogus claims in a book written on multiple continents, in multiple languages, from multiple authors, all of whom (except John?) weren't alive during Jesus' time.

I'll close with the Atheist Wager:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him. (M.Aurelius)

I was going to get into the depths of Occam's Razor and Russell's Teapot to further argue that the belief in the Christian God is irrational but let's leave it at this.

I ask all theists: Why do believe in your God and why does it affect your life so much? And why is it of so much concern how others lead their live? By this I am referring the blatant theocratic encroachment on the non-Christian sect of our society that faces social and political discrimination on a daily basis.

SO, until a time comes where one can rationally justify their belief in God (as my opponent unfortunately did not), and answer the many problems facing the belief I put forth here, I and many others will continue to argue that the belief in the Christian God is irrational.

Hope you enjoyed the read,

God Bless




Huh. I guess you're right.

For the record: I didn't just quit because I couldn't think of anything. I have been very busy lately, and I didn't really have the time to do any in-depth research.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thomas44 4 years ago
thomas44 long my friend.
Posted by thomas44 4 years ago
"Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18)

"Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me." (Exodus 13:2)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Ask and it will be given to you;seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB) -->If only this actually worked..

#1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
#2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
#3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
#4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

Confirmed and historically correct? For mankind's sake, let's hope you're wrong

The list goes can only cherry-pick passages for
Posted by johnwagner 4 years ago
Thomas44 would not recognize authentic and confirmed historical documentation and speciously attempted to discredit those facts with aberrant suppositions.

The score to date is indicative of the ungodly world that we live in today and how it will increasingly worsen….just as Scripture foretold.

MATTHEW 24:9 "…. you will be hated by all nations because of Me [Jesus]. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved."

2 PETER 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.

MATTHEW 7:13 "For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Posted by RBaker 4 years ago
Big surprise!
Posted by thomas44 4 years ago
In the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, "Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way."

I am all but drowning. You on the other hand, like many others, are a slave to your beliefs. Your God has you shackled to the floor, drinking more and more of the proverbial cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. For it is you who has committed the atrocity of death by intellectual suicide. With each sip you dissipate what's left of your freedom whilst living a life of fear of thought crime conviction by your ubiquitous celestial patriarch.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
Posted by johnwagner 4 years ago
Like so many others, Thomas44 is attempting to assuage his conscience by trying to convince himself, and hopefully others[misery loves company] that he can escape from God by denying His existence, hence his choice of topic and flailing to keep from drowning.

St. Augustine gives us the most eloquent summary: "You made us for Yourself, O Lord, and our hearts find no peace until they rest in You"

Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith's door,
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
The, looking in, I saw upon the floor
Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.
"How many anvils have you had," said I,
"To wear and batter all these hammers so?"
"Just one," said he, and then with twinkling eye,
"The anvil wears the hammers out, you know."
And so, thought I, the anvil of God's Word,
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed – the hammers gone.
Posted by johnwagner 4 years ago
It is really futile to debate this issue. "Debate" implies a formal contest in which affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

There is no basis on which to found an affirmative or a negative view in this case based on finite human logic…this is a spiritual matter. Truth, in this case, is found in the heart of man and cannot be denied or debated.
Either one is convinced by God within his heart or he is not. It's that simple. The temporal, worldly human mind cannot make a case for why it believes.

Faith is a free gift from God the Holy Spirit. Scriptures tell us that "man is a natural enemy of God" and "dead in trespasses and sin."

Let me explain why I believe this is so; though I cannot see why it should be so. This is because God convinced me, in my heart, and I believe it on His authority. That means He convinced me to think He is trustworthy. God in Christ saw fit to show mankind who He is by what His said and then prove it by what He did, His coming back from death - a fact of history like any other. None of us could prove our faith in God's Word by pure logic as you prove a thing in math. We believe simply because God has revealed His plan of salvation in Scripture and through people who did see these events have left writings that tell us about them; in fact, on irrefutable authority.
A man, who balks at authority in other things, as some people do in religion, would have to be content to know nothing at all in his life.

Again, it is futile to digress from what the heart teaches through God the Holy Spirit by challenging Scripture, Christ's presence on earth, or evolution. It is only human folly….as God calls it.

There is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes. One could not be right and God wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source.
When one argues against what God has said - that the only way to Him is through C
Posted by thomas44 4 years ago
I was thinking more facetious, but sarcastic works too.
Posted by LiberalJoe 4 years ago
Are you being sarcastic?
Posted by thomas44 4 years ago
I totes agree! Because ignorance is bliss! Why search for answers/truth when God is clearly a good enough explanation for the workings of our world and everything in it?!?! We all know this worked brilliantly well in our past...we should just eradicate all atheists' existence!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.