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

Christianity debate.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,738 times Debate No: 19297
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




In this debate, I am looking for an opponent to debate against me who is will to try to prove Christianity wrong or just willing to debate the subject. I am a believer of Christianity but am willing to test my knowledge and ability to try to defend the matter there of, this debate is me defending Christianity whilst my opponent attempts to prove it false.
Points I prefer and for my opponent to consider:
1. If Christianity is false, then why is it that it was translated over many languages and many times in about 2000 years.
2. If there is no God then how was everything created.
All mature opponents are welcome, mature as in no offensive language, religious slurs such as "my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend" any comments such as will be reported.


I will accept the debate and will prove that Christianity is more likely false than it is true. In this round I will just cover the points that my friend, WARR10R_AN6EL, has posted and ask a few points for him to address. In the next rounds I plan on going into scientific, philosophical, logical and historical arguments conflicting with the teachings of Christianity showing it unlikely to be true. I will now briefly answer my opponents questions.

1. If Christianity is false, then why is it that it was translated over many languages and many times in about 2000 years.

Something being translated to different languages over a period of time has nothing to do with whether it's true or not. Beowulf was translated multiple times, however, we don't generally believe this to be anything other than fiction.

2. If there is no God then how was everything created?

This one is actually quite complicated for people who don't understand advanced physics. Let me try to explain in a way everyone can understand, and hopefully I don't mangle the science too badly haha. Here is the current theory: Basically, in a flat universe (the kind of universe we live in) a universe can self create due to quantum fluctuations. The total energy of the universe is 0 because we have matter and anti-matter, thus we are allowed to have something rather than nothing. Lawrence M. Krauss, American theoretical physicist and professor of physics, Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration, and director of the Origins Project at the Arizona State University, said in a flat universe whenever you have nothing you will inevitably have something. It basically just deals with the kind of universe we're in. A flat universe is the only universe that can self-create. Yeah there's stuff we don't understand about the universe, but if the universe self-created as most highly regarded physicists and cosmologists agree it did then that means there was no room for God to create it and everything in it.

I have a few questions for Pro as well:

1. Isn't God the most complex being in existence? So what caused him? How does he exist? Why does he exist?

2. Why is the Christian God true instead of other Gods?

3. Why does he have all the traits he does? Why is he is all loving instead of kind of loving? Why is he all powerful instead of kind of powerful? Why is he all knowing instead of kind of knowing?

4. Why is there evil?

That's what I got for now, but there are five rounds here, which is plenty to discuss all of my arguments. Oh, and best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my challenge, and I can see where you are coming from with the advanced physics. As I can not comprehend though is if the universe did as you say "created itself" then how come we do not see random occurrences of objects popping up in our kitchen or our bedroom. As your source said when you have nothing you eventually get something, then why have I yet to see any "something" spontaneously appear or ever hear of this occurring. A counter argument I must discuss is that if you can obtain something from nothing than why have so many scientists and chemists and others proved that spontaneous combustion or recombination is impossible and no one has proved otherwise. If you can create something from nothing then why have we not done so publicly, so I should be able to take my hand and maybe something will spontaneously appear in my hand from nothing.

1. God is the most complex thing there is, he is very similar to us and our anatomy except well he can do things we just cant see possible. As a close friend of mine explained how God was created is that he wasn't, he always was, always will be, because he exists in heaven which is outside the space time continuum. People think we'll find heaven one day among the stars but this is quite the opposite. Until we are able to manipulate the very fabric of time itself we will never see heaven or hell for that matter on the fact that they are, in simple terms in another dimension, unless you pass away. People encountering near death experiences have said they saw a tunnel and a light at the end, well it is that maybe our body can neither see the fabric of time or by far pass through it, but perhaps our soul can. I have not encountered such a experience myself but maybe only our soul can see the fabric of time but only once it is soon to leave our body. Another argument relating to this is that with spirits, they either did not want to pass through the fabric or they merely could not reach it beyond our reasons of understanding.

2. Now getting into my opponents question about why is the "Christian God" true and not other Gods instead. Well as simple as I can put this is we have free will, some people as atheists, batiste, Jews, Muslims and so many others have the free will to believe in what they want to "Freely". God gave us free will, he did not want robots walking around and worshiping him because we were forced to, he wanted us to do so because we wanted to "Freely". I believe in my religion, as other religions believe in theirs. Me saying "Their religion is absolute garbage and it isn't true." is why we have war today. Do not take me out of context though as I do believe my religion is the true one, that doesn't give me the right to criticise others for them thinking their religion is true. As in the bible on so many accounts, people are worshiping other Gods because they have the free will to do so.

3. God is "all knowing, all loving, and all powerful" because well isn't it in every other religion. Mythologists, Jewish, Muslim. To point our religion out specifically for doing this is discrimination. Also, for someone to create an entire universe, as stated in the beginning, something as complex as the human race they would have to be all knowing. As I heard somewhere before, "If the sun had been even a tiny bit closer or a tiny bit further from the sun, life wouldn't be sustainable." for such explicit details every where you look someone who wasn't all knowing the think of everything possible wouldn't have been able to create the universe. Now onto the all loving, you can see from every day human beings, our emotions control us on a daily basis. whether the love emotion to smile at your wife in the morning, that jealous feeling when someone at your office gets your promotion you wanted, or the sadness you feel when a loved one passes away. God is all loving because with the things we do to our own kind anyone not all loving would have destroyed us long ago. even in the story "Noah's ark" God was upset with what he had created turned out the way it had. Such as war waging, greedy, selfish, so he attempted to destroy what he had done with a great flood. However, one man "Noah" was so good at heart, and so close to what God wanted in his creations, he told him to build an arc and so on and so forth. If God was not all loving, then he would have said "With only one human out of so many created is like this, then there is no hope for them." and would have killed all of us. Afterward God felt sad for what he had done, so he created the rainbow to symbolize his promise to never do such a thing again. and yes you can say the rainbow is just the reflection of light on water particles, but is it not also possible God created this effect to occur this way. The all powerful, I mean come on, someone kind of powerful can't create what he has.

4. There is evil because it would be impossible to explain what good was without something that was the opposite. We cannot have chaos without peace.


Pro has still yet to provided an argument for why Christianity is true. Let's delve into this anyway.

". . .then how come we do not see random occurrences of objects popping up in our kitchen or our bedroom." My opponent misunderstands "quantum fluctuations." You wouldn't see these particles. They're virtual particles that pop into and out of existence. These aren't chairs and televisions popping into and out of your room. Also, spontaneous combustion does happen, so I'm confused where you're getting your information. Here are two examples via wikipedia "Haystacks, compost piles and unprocessed cotton may self-ignite because of heat produced by bacterial fermentation.
Linseed oil in a partially confined space (such as a pile of oil-soaked rags left out in an uncovered container) can oxidize leading to a buildup of heat and thus ignition." There are even 200 cases of spontaneous human combustion. Although I don't really know why I'm addressing this or what it has to do with quantum fluctuations.

To address questions:

How does God exist and why does he exist

1. Pro lists qualities of God and says he, "exists outside the spacetime continuum." This is incomprehensible and no evidence exists to support the statement.

2. Why is Christianity right over other religions

"I believe in my religion, as other religions believe in theirs. Me saying "Their religion is absolute garbage and it isn't true." is why we have war today. Do not take me out of context though as I do believe my religion is the true one, that doesn't give me the right to criticise others for them thinking their religion is true. As in the bible on so many accounts, people are worshiping other Gods because they have the free will to do so." Pro can't provide any evidence or reasons why Christianity ought to be believed over other religions. Even if we decide to assume one of those religions is correct we could only at best give Christianity a 1 in 500 chance of being correct, given the number of other religions with equal evidence. Technically, this debate could be over now, given Christianity's extremely low percentage chance of being true (what I promised to prove), but I will continue anyways.

I have only two arguments to post showing Christianity as false:

1. Let's first establish the Bible is inerrant. Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is flawless. Also, as Stanley Grenz, biblical scholar, said, "Because God cannot lie and because Scripture is inspired by God, the bible must be wholly true." So when the Bible says that there was a world wide flood it was meant literally. However, scientific evidence shows there was no worldwide flood. To quote talkorigins because I don't want to paraphrase:

"How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker]"

As you can clearly see here there are a lot of problems with believing the global flood actually happened, and a lot of evidence to the contrary.

2. My second argument is one from logic. Something can't exist, which has contradictory qualities. The most common example would be the circle square. While a square must have 4 sides a circle is required to not have any. Thus, such a thing as a circle square is impossible since it is impossible for the same shape to have both 4 sides and no sides simultaneously. Similarly, a God who is both all knowing and all powerful cannot exist. I'll explain. If the God knows what he's going to do in the future, but then he is able to change it he is still all powerful but not all knowing. If he knows what he is going to do in the future and is stuck having to do that action in the future then he is not all powerful.
Conclusion: An all powerful all knowing God cannot exist. Since the Christian God is an all powerful all knowing God the Christian God cannot exist.

Resolution NEGATED (or whatever they say)

Also, to remind my opponent. You haven't provided any evidence that Christianity is correct. You cannot prove Christianity true or your argument true without providing evidence.

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent brings up many good points, might first one to discuss is the Worldwide flood discussed in noahs ark story. If i may, i quote from Micheal Oard "Geological evidence for Noah's Flood will be presented, mainly for the last stage of the Flood as the water retreated off the continents. The Flood has left some startling traces on the surface of the earth in the form of erosional remnants, continental shelves, large-scale planation surfaces, quartzite rocks transported by water hundreds of miles from their nearest source, water gaps, pediments, and submarine canyons. All these geomorphic features are very difficult, if not impossible, to explain by the "slow processes over millions of years" alternative model." as my opponent suggested there is no evidence of a great worldwide flood ever occuring, and yet i just countered with current evidence found.
more information discovered on a site i dont particularlly like but i will use in counter action to my opponent using it. Stated on wikipedia, on a topic of Flood Geology "The geological peculiarity in northern Europe where much is covered by layers of loam and gravel as well as erratic boulders deposited hundreds of miles from their original sources furthered acceptance of the idea. Early geologists interpreted these features as the result of massive flooding (in the mid 19th century geologists accepted that they had been formed by ice age glaciations).[4] The global flood was associated with massive geographical upheavals, with old continents sinking and new ones rising, thus transforming ancient seabeds into mountain tops."
so now that i have posted evidence of a great world wide flood, i will move on to the next point of discussion.
Reading the argument about the circle square, i had become stumped on my response on how to counter such a logical explanation and i give my opponent applause for a good counter to the "all knowing, and all powerful."
im not exactly sure how to counter this arguement but one i did find is "My dear friends omniscience is indeed the ability to know what will happen in the future but you forget that God is omnipotent he can change the future as well as know it."
as far as evidence for proving christianity is true, the religion is solely founded on the ressurection of christ. i find a great source of evidence giving facts on how christianity is highly true.
History of Christianity: The Beginning of the Faith
History of Christianity -- how did it all start? Christianity started about 2000 years ago in Judea (present-day Israel) with Jesus Christ and His faithful group of disciples. During this period, Judea was a cross-cultural mecca of bustling cities and farms. The emperor of Rome was the ruler. The Jews at that time hated Roman rule -- it was but another reminder of the historical oppression they faced as a people. The polytheistic cultural beliefs of Rome were also pagan and intrusive to Jewish life. Some Jews saw that their only hope was to conform to this change. Others became religious zealots who formed pockets of guerilla resistance against Rome. Still others withdrew themselves into the Judean wilderness to study the Jewish law and wait for the eventual coming of their promised Messiah (savior).

History of Christianity: The Arrival of Jesus Christ
History of Christianity -- With this cultural and religious backdrop, the ministry of Jesus began. Jesus was a Jew. He observed the Jewish faith and was well acquainted with the Jewish Law. In His early thirties, Jesus traveled from village to village, teaching in the synagogues and healing those who were suffering. Jesus' teaching was revolutionary. He challenged the established religious authorities to repent from their self-righteousness and hypocrisy and realize that the Kingdom of God is rooted in service and love. Jesus' teachings stirred the hearts of people and created instability, something the Jewish religious authorities feared. Soon, a faithful group of men began to follow Jesus and call him teacher. These men became His disciples. Jesus taught His disciples about the will of God and about the "new covenant" God will bring to humanity through Him. Jesus helped them to see that mankind is bound to the pain and futility of life as a result of sin. Due to sin, mankind lost its relationship with God. The purpose of this "new covenant" is to restore those who accept it into a renewed fellowship of forgiveness and love with God. What is this new covenant? Jesus himself would pay for the sins of all humanity by being crucified unjustly on a Roman cross. Three days later, He would rise to life, having conquered death, to give hope to a hopeless world. Well, it happened just as Jesus taught, and His disciples were witnesses to an amazing miracle. Their teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, died and three days later rose again to become their Messiah. Compelled by a great commission to share the love that the God of this universe had imparted upon them, the disciples began to proclaim this gospel of hope throughout the territory. Thus, from a small group of ordinary men that lived in a small province in Judea about 2000 years ago, the history of the Christian Church began, and the Christian Faith has since spread to the rest of the world. Their gospel message was simple: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16).

History of Christianity: Foretold by Prophecy
Though most of the historical record for the start of the Christian faith is recorded in the New Testament accounts, the history of Christianity actually began with prophecy in the Old Testament. There are over 300 prophecies (predictions) that span over a period of 1000 years that are recorded in the Old Testament concerning the coming of a Jewish Messiah. A study of Jesus' life, death and background will show that He was undoubtedly the fulfillment of these Messianic prophecies. Thus, even long before Jesus walked the earth, His mission was made known to mankind through the Word of God.

History of Christianity: A Faith Based on Historical Fact
History of Christianity- did it all really happen? At first glance, the history Christianity's origin may seem like nothing more than a fairy tale. Many feel that it's just too implausible, and even intellectually dishonest, for people living in the 21st century to believe that these events actually took place. However, the Christian faith, unlike any other religion, hinges on historical events, including one of pivotal importance. If Jesus Christ died and never rose to life, then Christianity is a myth or a fraud. In 1 Corinthians 15:14, Paul exhorts his readers to grab hold of this central truth, that "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." The evidence for the resurrection is the key to establishing that Jesus is indeed who He claims to be. It is the historical validity of this central fact that gives Christians genuine and eternal hope amidst a hurting world.
this comes from


It's nice to see my opponent back. So, let's get to it.

Before I get to my opponents arguments I should point out that the scientific community views flood geology as a pseudoscience. Anyhow, my opponent quotes a creation scientist and former weatherman, "The flood has left some startling traces on the surface of the earth in the form of erosional remnants, continental shelves, large-scale plantation surfaces, quartzite rocks rocks transported by water hundreds of miles from their nearest source, water gaps, pediments, and submarine canyons. All these geomorphic features are very difficult, if not impossible, to explain by the "slow processes over millions of years" alternative model."

My opponent hasn't addressed the inconstancies of the flood, which can be found in round 2 for all viewers of the debate, but he also needs to provide some specific examples to show his claims are true. I, for example, cited that the Sierra Nevadas weren't as eroded as they should be (as eroded as the Appalachian Mountains), given a worldwide flood. If my opponent could cite the mountains "erosional remnants," which could not exist without the flood that would be good. The same goes with all of his other claims. We need some examples. Then, afterwards we need an explanation for all the inconsistencies such as why traces of a flood weren't found on seafloors , for example, or how ice caps are even possible. With scientific claims, if there are problems with the claims, showing these claims unlikely to be true these claims are dropped and other claims are put forward, which are more consistent with what happened. I won't argue that there are probably things that science doesn't have an explanation for yet, but you can't just attribute that to the flood. We've seen that the flood theory has some incredibly serious problems, which must be addressed in order for the flood theory to be taken seriously.

My second argument should seal the deal. My opponent is unable to counter my logical proof that an all knowing all powerful God could not exist. It was a fun debate, but Christian claims simply cannot stand against scientific and logical scrutiny. The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3


Ok, so i will discuss on the ark and flood momentarily, but i first one to bring up the arguement my opponent makes about all powerful. I recently came across a piece of information that is very good at explaining the matter of being all knowing and all powerful is contradictory. Ill simplify, god made us in his image, we have free will so he does as well. here is the piece of information. "First, God is not "stuck" having to do that action. God **already knows** what action he will freely choose to take. The inability to change one's mind over time does not exclude omnipotence.

Second, "all powerful" itself means "power over all other things that exist" - not "the power to do anything". For example: if God is all-powerful, logically he cannot create a being that is more powerful than himself. If he could, logically he would not be all-powerful; instead, the hypothetical being would be all-powerful.

However, the second consideration is minor in the face of the first. God knows what he will freely choose to do in the future; he is not in any way controlled by that knowledge, as his future choices are still free-will choices.

Practical example: at a certain sub shop, customers are offered white or wheat bread. You have tried the wheat bread and dislike its flavor intensely, but you are very fond of the white bread at that sub shop. You KNOW the next time that you go to that shop to buy your own lunch that you will order a white bread sub for yourself. That day arrives: you enter the shop and the server asks you, "White or wheat bread". Your foreknowledge does not in ANY way limit your free will; you are still at that moment able to choose either variety of bread. Foreknowledge does NOT limit one's ability (or power) to make a choice or to act."

If this does not explain the all knowing all powerful argument my opponent makes then i will keep elaborating on the subject further.

Now on to the flood, i warn you the following statement is long that i found from to view the pictures please go to <; to view them for i was not able to post the pictures. "(3) This is not a "story" like "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" or "The Three Little Pigs". No, this Flood actually happened, with an incredible amount of physical evidence which can still be seen throughout the world today, showing that it did indeed happen. This scientific evidence is also well documented. The huge weight of scientific evidence just cannot be simply ignored, as if this were just some kind of "Children's Story".

There are whole books describing some of the voluminous scientific data proving that the Flood of Noah's day was a fact, and not a mere "children's story". At the top of this page is a photograph of the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. Please note the obvious: that there is shockingly little erosion on the top "rim" of the Grand Canyon, (a canyon which was supposedly formed hundreds of millions of years ago through the gradual natural processes of erosion).

If you will look again at the above photograph, you might notice that the sides of the Grand Canyon go almost straight up and down. (In fact, they actually do go straight up and down in quite a few places along the canyon.) If gradual natural processes of erosion formed this Grand Canyon, and not Noah's Flood, then the top edge (or "rim") should be rounded, and not an edge at all, since the gradual processes of erosion always tend to round out sharp edges, not create them. In fact, after hundreds of millions of years, these same processes of erosion, (which those who believe "The Story of Evolution" claim formed the Grand Canyon), would have turned any such edges that might have once existed into gradual slopes.

Here above is another photograph which I took of the Grand Canyon. Now consider the actual material that this canyon is made up of. For the most part, it is sandstone or other fine material such as is formed through the depositing of layers of volcanic ash. (Many of the layers of the Grand Canyon were in fact formed through such volcanic ash deposits.)

In this photo above, you can see a tree growing in the foreground at the left, next to the very edge of the Grand Canyon. This photo was taken from the very edge of the rim of the Grand Canyon, looking down into the canyon at about sunset. Normally, the roots of vegetation, (such as can be seen in this photograph), tend to quickly break up such soft rock formations, hastening the natural processes of erosion caused by wind, rain and snow. You can actually see the effects of such erosion in this picture, with many small pieces of rock next to the tree's roots having been broken off from the main rock surface. You can also see just how steep the sides of the canyon really are by looking at the darkened facing cliff to the left of center in this picture, and noting its almost vertical edge.

Here is another picture of the top edge, or "rim" of the Grand Canyon. I found that while I was standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon, I could actually place the tip of my shoe over the "edge" of the Grand Canyon, with the back of my shoe firmly standing on the flat rim surface. The front of my shoe was hanging over an edge that went straight down for hundreds of feet!

If natural erosion over many millions of years' time had formed The Grand Canyon, then there should not be any such edge at all for me to hang the front part of my shoes over. (By the way, as can clearly be seen in the above photograph, the radius of this edge at the rim of the Canyon under my shoe was only about two inches at this section of the rim, testifying that the Grand Canyon could therefore only be a few thousand years old at most, not the hundreds of millions of years claimed by those who believe "The Story of Evolution".)

Above is another photo of the Grand Canyon for you to consider. The Grand Canyon is about a mile deep from the rim at the top to the Colorado River way down at the bottom. Although magnified in this telephoto image, the Colorado River actually looks very small from the top rim of the Grand Canyon. From the rim, the Colorado River in fact looks like a small bluish-black line way down at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. No, I am sorry, but this tiny little river at the bottom of the Grand Canyon could not have carved out a huge canyon a mile deep and many miles wide right out of solid rock! This is just common sense.

Now here above is another picture of the Grand Canyon. I call it the "Slice of Cake". The right photo is a close-up of the same view as the left picture. The left photo covers about thirty feet vertically from the bottom of the picture to the rim edge and the right picture about six feet. Erosion of this edge is only a few inches in radius, as can be clearly seen in the right photo by the scant amount of erosion at the left edge of the rim.

The angle of the top of this edge is only about 30 degrees from side. Also, both sides of this "knife edge" rock formation drop down for hundreds of feet. Now, you tell me. How could, as evolutionists claim, this "crisp" and "sharp" geological feature have been cut right out of solid rock over "millions of years through steady, gradual processes operating over very long time periods of thousands or millions of years"
sadly i was not able to post all of the site because it was longer then the characters i have. so if you want to see the rest please go to the website listed above.


My opponent still fails counter my logical proof.

He says, "Second, "all powerful" itself means "power over all other things that exist" - not "the power to do anything". I counter with: First let's remember the word of God is supposed to be read as inerrant. "Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is flawless." Second my opponent is assigning powers to God different to those assigned to him in the Bible "Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27 With God all things are possible." "Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible." So, yeah, all powerful = "the power to do anything."

Let's get the sandwich example. My opponent maintains that I go to a sandwich shop and know that I'm going to order a sandwich on white bread, but I can choose wheat if I want in the present. It's all about freewill and what not. The problem is I'm not God (all knowing and all powerful).

Now let's look at God. Viewers, please pay close attention here and reread if you have to. Here we go:

If he knows with 100% certainty (which he should because he's all knowing) he will order white bread that means he would HAVE to choose white bread and couldn't choose wheat regardless of whether he wanted to or not, thus he is not all powerful. If, however, he is able to change and not choose white i.e. what he knew he was going to do and chooses wheat instead, regardless of whether he wants to or not, then he's not all knowing.

Think about it this way. I say, "I can fly, but I choose not to." It's the same as God saying, "I can get wheat, but I choose not to." Both are actually impossible things for both of us to do. God literally can't because then he wouldn't be all knowing. Yes it's hard to understand, but it makes it logically impossible for him to be all knowing and all powerful.

So, once again, resolution negated. I'll briefly cover the flood again, even though I technically don't need to.

The flood:
I can't get to your source and therefore any of the pictures. Anyhow, I will repeat myself. There are problems with the flood theory. Even if one thing looks consistent with the flood theory we have to make sure everything that should be able to be explained by the theory is consistent with the flood theory. If there are inconsistencies with the flood theory the flood theory must be modified, reworked or thrown out. My opponent still hasn't addressed the inconsistencies of the flood. At the risk of repeating myself, look at the inconsistencies in round 2 and some I repeated in round 3. If inconsistencies aren't addressed there's no reason to believe the flood happened. So until he answers all these points, showing the flood and inaccurate depiction of reality, I still win this one too.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 4


WARR10R_AN6EL forfeited this round.


So, my opponent has forfeited the final round without ever proving his case or refuting mine. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Boogerdoctor 6 years ago
No problems at all. This is just for fun so I don't take how long you take to post seriously or anything.
Posted by WARR10R_AN6EL 6 years ago
i have to say i have a very worthy opponent, and patient one as well. thank you for waiting on my response and i appologize it took so long to post.
Posted by Boogerdoctor 6 years ago
No problem take your time.
Posted by WARR10R_AN6EL 6 years ago
i will write my argument tomorrow, i have an english paper do friday so i must finish it. thank you for your patience
Posted by WARR10R_AN6EL 6 years ago
In this debate, I will be defending christianity whilst my opponent debates to prove it false.
Posted by tornshoe92 6 years ago
Are you trying to prove Christianity is correct or are you looking for someone to prove it false? It's important in determining who has the burden of proof.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SquadSix 6 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I really liked reading this debate and was disappointed to not see a final round. I had to vote this way since Con did make better arguments and that one hour video plus his sources were much better. Hope to see you two go at it again!